Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M GOVINDARAJU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K MUNISAMI GOUNDER [D] & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/08/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)13
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellant, M. Govindaraju, was born to Pappammal
from the loins of Munisami Gounder. The trial court as well
as the High Court have neither disputed the paternity nor
the maternity of the appellant. He has been denied his share
in the joint Hindu family property owned by his father on
the sole ground that when begotten no valid marriage
subsisted between his parents. The trial court was in his
favour though in giving him legitimacy, but the High Court
branded the appellant as an illegitimate child of his
parents and, hence, not entitled to claim partition of the
joint Hindu family property. The said property consists of
about 21 acres of agricultural land in which the appellant
claims 1/7th share.
Evidence Was led by the parties on the issue whether
Munisami Gounder had validly married Pappammal. It was not
denied by either side that beforehand Pappammal stood
married to one Koola Gounder and after lining with him for a
couple of years, had walked out of his house to live with
Munisami Gounder way-back in the Year 1942/1943. The
evidence of P.W. 2 led by the plaintiff as to the
performance of the spoken of marriage by rites and rituals,
or that efforts were made to have the marriage of Pappammal
with Koola Gounder cancelled, was rejected by the High
Court. Be that as it may, the fact found remains that
Pappammal walked out of her husband’s house and started
living with Munisami Gounder in the year 1942/1943 and it is
as a result of that union that the appellant was born.
The High Court in illegitimising the appellant, seems
to have overlooked the caste factor which would have a great
bearing in order to establish the relationship between the
parties. They were ’Gounder’, necessarily falling in the
classification of ‘Shudras’. Hindu law is clear on the
subject that If a Shudra woman is turned out of the house by
her husband, or she willfully abandons him and is not
pursued to be brought back as wife, a divorce in fact takes
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
place, sometimes regulated by custom, and then each spouse
is entitled, to re-arrange his/her life in marriage with
other marrying partners. Walking out of Pappammal from the
house of her first husband Koola Gounder was irretrievable
and irreversible, for it is in evidence that neither of them
took interest in each other thereafter. The divorce was thus
complete. Paternity of the appellant having not been denied,
he was treated as a son of his father. We would, therefore,
think that the trial court was right in giving him the
status as a son of his father. In doing so, the trial court
rightly took in aid the fact that in recognition of that
status, the appellant was given his first cousin in marriage
i.e. Munisami’s sister’s daughter. That fact was
corroborative of a valid acknowledgement of paternity and
legitimacy. If the people, especially the relatives, had
treated and acknowledged the appellant as the legitimate son
of his father by forging a bond of matrimony of the sort
aforementioned, it is a strong piece of evidence to hold
that the appellant was a legitimate offspring of his father.
The High Court thus clearly fell in error in illegitimising
him. We reverse that view.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set
aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that
of the trial court, but without any order as to costs.