2017 (8) TMI 1656 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Confirms Heirs' Share in Estate, Validates Marriage

Dharmasamvarthini and Rajeswari Versus Selvakumar, Tamilselvan, Gajendran, Kalaiselvi, Senthilkumar, Pugazhanthi and Indian Bank, Mission Street and Indian Bank rep. by its General Manager, Office at Mission Street Versus Dharmasamvarthini, Rajeswari

Dharmasamvarthini and Rajeswari Versus Selvakumar, Tamilselvan, Gajendran, Kalaiselvi, Senthilkumar, Pugazhanthi and Indian Bank, Mission Street and ... Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Durairaj.2. Validity of the alleged marriage between Kamalambal and Durairaj on 05.06.1960.3. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to partition and share in the properties of Durairaj.4. Validity of the preliminary decree regarding bank deposits.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Plaintiffs as Legal Heirs of Late Durairaj:The plaintiffs claimed to be the children of Durairaj and Kamalambal, asserting their right to a share in Durairaj's estate. The defendants, Durairaj's first wife and daughter, denied the marriage between Durairaj and Kamalambal, alleging that Kamalambal was merely a concubine. The court examined evidence including letters, birth certificates, and testimonies of witnesses (PW1 to PW11). The court found that the plaintiffs were indeed born to Durairaj and Kamalambal, as evidenced by documents like Ex.A1 (birth certificate) and Ex.A2 (transfer certificate). The court concluded that the plaintiffs were legitimate children of Durairaj, thereby entitled to a share in his estate.2. Validity of the Alleged Marriage between Kamalambal and Durairaj on 05.06.1960:The plaintiffs provided evidence of the marriage ceremony, including testimonies from witnesses who attended the wedding. PW4, PW5, PW7, and PW9 testified about the marriage, which included traditional rituals like exchanging garlands and tying thali. The defendants' cross-examination did not effectively dispute these claims. The court also considered the long cohabitation of Durairaj and Kamalambal as husband and wife, supported by various documents (Ex.A43 to Ex.A45, letters from Durairaj). The court held that the marriage was valid under the presumption of legality from long cohabitation, despite the first marriage being in existence, as per Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.3. Entitlement of the Plaintiffs to Partition and Share in the Properties of Durairaj:The court examined various documents proving the relationship between Durairaj and Kamalambal, including Ex.A30 (gift deed) and Ex.A32 (sale deed). The evidence showed that Durairaj treated Kamalambal as his wife and the plaintiffs as his children. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 6/8th share in the properties of Durairaj, as decreed by the trial court. The court confirmed the preliminary decree regarding the properties listed as items 1, 2, 4, and 7.4. Validity of the Preliminary Decree Regarding Bank Deposits:The third defendant, the bank, appealed against the preliminary decree concerning a deposit of Rs. 2,00,000. The bank had already adjusted the deposit against a housing mortgage loan and paid the remaining amount to the first defendant after obtaining an indemnity bond. The plaintiffs conceded that no amount was available in the bank at the time of filing the suit. The court set aside the preliminary decree concerning the bank deposit, acknowledging that the amount was not available for partition.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal (A.S.No.926 of 1992) by the first and second defendants, confirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to a 6/8th share in Durairaj's properties. The court allowed the bank's appeal (A.S.No.986 of 1993), setting aside the preliminary decree concerning the bank deposit. The judgment of the trial court was thus upheld in part and modified in respect of the bank deposit. No costs were awarded.