Supreme Court Overturns High Court, Reinstates Trial Court's Verdict on Marriage Validity and Inheritance Rights.

The SC set aside the HC's judgment, reinstating the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that Smt. Rengammal was legally married to Alagarsami Reddiar, negating any presumption of marriage with Muthu Reddiar. Consequently, the children from the live-in relationship were not entitled to inherit the coparcenary property. The appeal was allowed, and the HC's judgment dated 10th July 2001 was overturned. Respondent No. 1 was advised to pursue legal proceedings for the recovery of the sale consideration from his vendors.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the marriage between Smt. Rengammal and Alagarsami Reddiar.
2. Presumption of marriage from a live-in relationship between Smt. Rengammal and Muthu Reddiar.
3. Legitimacy and inheritance rights of children born out of the live-in relationship.
4. High Court's re-appreciation of evidence in the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the marriage between Smt. Rengammal and Alagarsami Reddiar:
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both found that Smt. Rengammal was legally wedded to Alagarsami Reddiar, who was alive at the time of the suit's institution. They concluded that there had been no legal separation between them. The evidence included statements from witnesses and documentary evidence (Exts.B14, B18, B19, and B2). The High Court, however, only considered the statement of Seethammal, DW1, and ignored the evidence from plaintiff's witnesses, Kumarasamy PW2 and Kandasamy PW5, leading to a re-evaluation of the evidence.

2. Presumption of marriage from a live-in relationship between Smt. Rengammal and Muthu Reddiar:
The High Court concluded that the long cohabitation between Smt. Rengammal and Muthu Reddiar could lead to a presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by not considering the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which provides for the legitimacy of a child born during a lawful wedlock unless proven otherwise by strong evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that proof of non-access between Rengammal and Alagarsami was not pleaded or proven, thus the presumption of legitimacy stood.

3. Legitimacy and inheritance rights of children born out of the live-in relationship:
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended, legitimizes children born out of void and voidable marriages but restricts their inheritance rights to the self-acquired properties of their parents, not ancestral coparcenary property. The Supreme Court cited various precedents, including S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan and others, to affirm that children from void marriages can inherit only the self-acquired properties of their parents. Since the suit land was not proven to be self-acquired property of Muthu Reddiar, the children from the live-in relationship could not inherit it.

4. High Court's re-appreciation of evidence in the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court's role in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to addressing substantial questions of law and not re-appreciating evidence unless the findings of the lower courts are perverse. The High Court's decision to re-evaluate the evidence and disregard the lower courts' findings without a clear finding of perversity was deemed inappropriate. The Supreme Court cited several cases, including Sheel Chand vs. Prakash Chand and Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji vs. Mahadev Channabasappa, to support this view.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that Smt. Rengammal was legally married to Alagarsami Reddiar, and thus, no presumption of marriage with Muthu Reddiar could arise. Consequently, the children from the live-in relationship were not entitled to inherit the coparcenary property. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment dated 10th July 2001 was set aside. The respondent No. 1 was advised to pursue legal proceedings for the recovery of the sale consideration from his vendors.

---