Biological children inherit equally in their father’s immovable property despite their parents’ invalid marriages.

Late Sukhidas Kurre had married Shobha Sahu, with whom he had a son, Avinash.

The plaintiffs claimed that Shobha’s marriage to Sukhidas had been dissolved by a customary consent deed (Ex. P-4), after which Sukhidas married Ashok Lata; they had two daughters.

Shobha disputed the dissolution and claimed rights as Sukhidas’s widow.

After Sukhidas’s death, the parties disputed rights in his house and approximately ₹17 lakh in service-related dues.

The trial court found neither that Ashok Lata was Sukhidas’s legally wedded wife nor that Shobha’s marriage had been dissolved, but recognized the daughters’ rights and granted Shobha relief concerning the house and service benefits.

The plaintiffs appealed

1. Whether the trial court was justified in recognizing the daughters’ entitlement to service benefits on the basis of their parentage

2. Whether Shobha remained Sukhidas’s legally wedded wife, and was entitled to a share in his service benefits and possession of the house

3. Whether Ashok Lata’s marriage to Sukhidas was valid despite the question of her prior marriage

4. Whether declaratory relief concerning the immovable property and service-related dues could be granted without the appropriate consequential relief

The proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars a bare declaration where the claimant is able to seek further relief but omits to do so

Under Sections 107(1)(a) and 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an appellate court may determine the case and exercise powers available to a court of original jurisdiction, including examining a statutory requirement not addressed by the trial court

The Court applied the principle against approbation and reprobation: a party cannot rely on a transaction for one purpose and reject it when claiming a contrary advantage

It also held that claims to qualifying debts and securities may be pursued under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, through a succession certificate

It treated a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage as invalid when considering Ashok Lata’s marital status

Shobha’s service records and admissions showed that she had a husband, Arun, and that she treated her marriage to Sukhidas as dissolved when entering that relationship.

The Court held that she could not rely on the alleged dissolution to support her subsequent marriage while denying its effect to claim Sukhidas’s estate; she was therefore not his legally wedded wife at his death

Ashok Lata admitted that her earlier marriage to Dhanesh Kosle had not been dissolved, so her marriage to Sukhidas could not establish her status as his legally wedded wife

The parties did not dispute that all three children were Sukhidas’s biological children, and the evidence established his ownership of the immovable property; each child was therefore entitled to an equal share

For service-related dues, however, the parties had sought declarations without seeking recovery or paying the requisite ad valorem court fee.

A bare declaration could not support payment, and the competing claims were more appropriately addressed through succession-certificate proceedings

It modified the decree to grant Sukhidas’s three children equal shares in his immovable property and set aside the declaratory relief concerning service-related dues, leaving the parties at liberty to seek an appropriate succession certificate under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Both appeals were disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs