This Second Appeal challenges the dismissal of a partition suit. The High Court held that while an annulled marriage is void ab-initio qualifying the daughter under the 1989 Act, she was disentitled by an earlier partition decree and the father's death before the 2005 amendment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 21.01.2019
DATED: 04.02.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
S.A. No. 1471 of 1998
Vedanayaki
.. Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
Vs.
PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment's and Decree dated 27.02.1998 made in A.S.No. 86 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Court, Periyar, at Erode pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.1996 made in O.S.No. 446 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Manohar
For RR R2 to 7 : Mr.T.Murugamanickam Senior Counsel for Mrs. Zenath Begum
R8 & 9 : Not ready in No time
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No. 446 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode, is the appellant herein.
“(i) Whether the Courts below were right in law in treating the marriage of the appellant/plaintiff annulled by a Decree of nullity under Section 12(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 as valid under law and proceeded on that footing to negative the relief of partition prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff?;
(ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in not adverting to the principle of law that a marriage annulled under Section 12 (i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is void ab-initio as if no marriage had taken place?; and
(iii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of the suit properties on the basis of the Tamilnadu Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 1989 (Act 1/90)?”
O.S.No. 446 of 1996 – Principal District Munsif Court, Erode:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree of partition and separate possession?;
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mense profits?; and
(iii) To what other reliefs is the plaintiff entitled
to?
S.A.No. 1471 of 1998:
“(i) Whether the Courts below were right in law in treating the marriage of the appellant/plaintiff annulled by a Decree of nullity under Section 12(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 as valid under law and proceeded on that footing to negative the relief of partition prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff?;
(ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in not adverting to the principle of law that a marriage annulled under Section 12 (i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is void ab-initio as if no marriage had taken place?; and
(iii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of the suit properties on the basis of the Tamilnadu Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 1989 (Act 1/90)?”
“12 Voidable marriages .?
(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:?
(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the
respondent; or]
...........”
“Nothing in Clause 2(ii) shall apply to a partition which had been effected before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1989. The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 came into effect from 25.03.1989.”
the daughter should show that her father was alive on 09.09.2005 when the Act came into force. Admittedly in this case, the father of C.V.Narayanaswamy had died on 09.10.2001. Consequently, even on that ground, the plaintiff would not be entitled to seek partition.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsg
To
S.A. No. 1471 of 1998
CNR(CO) GMY(29/03/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an annulled marriage under Section 12(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is void ab-initio for partition purposes?
Whether the appellant is entitled to partition under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 1989 despite marrying before 25.03.1989?
Whether the appellant is barred by an earlier partition decree and the prospective nature of the 2005 amendment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sheela Devi Vs Lal Chand (2006) 8 SCC 581Distinguished¶63
Sheela Devi Vs Lal Chand (2006) 8 SCC 581 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vedanayaki
C.V.Narayanasamy
C.V.N.Chakrapani
C.V.N.Thiruvengadam
C.V.N.Varadharaj
N.Vijaya Chamundeswari
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
