Allowed

Akhil Manohar v. Revati Ram Manohar and 3 others

Madras HC14 Mar 2022A/376/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a suit for declaration and partition on the ground that it was barred by law under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the plaintiff married while her prior marriage was subsisting. The application seeking rejection was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking rejection of the plaint in C.S.No.405 of 2020 under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed; the plaint is rejected.

Akhil Manohar Vs Revati Ram Manohar and 3 others — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

¶2

A.No.376 of 2021 in

¶3

C.S.No.405 of 2020

¶4

In the suit filed for declaration and partition, the applicant/4^th defendant has filed this application seeking to reject the plaint in C.S.No.405 of 2020 on two grounds, one is the suit is barred by law under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and another is proper Court fees has not been paid.

¶5

2.The learned counsel for the applicant/4^th defendant submitted that the plaintiff married Late Mr.Ram Manohar, who is the father of the 4^th defendant, in the year 1998, and she had already got married with another person and her earlier marriage was dissolved only in the year 1999. He further submitted that the plaint averments clearly shows that the earlier marriage was not dissolved either by the Court of law or by any customs prevailed in the community, however, the plaintiff married the father of the applicant and hence, the same is hit by Section 5 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶6

3.It is settled proposition of law that while deciding the application

¶7

under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C the Court has to see the averments made

¶8

Page No.1/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶9

in the plaint, but, not the defence taken by the respondents. A reading of the plaint especially paragraph No.3 of the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff married the father of the applicant/4^th defendant, in the year 1998, whereas, her earlier marriage was dissolved only in the year 1999. Hence, the marriage between the plaintiff and the father of the applicant/4^th defendant is not a valid marriage, therefore, she is not entitled for any partition in the suit scheduled property.

¶10

4.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds

¶11

that this suit is barred by law, therefore, the plaint is rejected. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

¶12

5.As far as the Court fee is concerned, the reasons stated in the

¶13

affidavit are satisfied, as the same are not the ground for rejection. However, the suit is rejected on the ground of barred by law hit by Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶14

14.03.2022

¶15

¶16

Page No.2/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

¶18

¶19

A.No.376 of 2021 in C.S.No.405 of 2020

¶20

14.03.2022

¶21

Page No.3/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Akhil Manohar v. Revati Ram Manohar and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Manohar v. Revati Ram Manohar and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devika Vs Pradeep Purohit

C.Kannammai Vs nil

S.Uma Maheswari Vs P.Kesavan and 2 Others

Debts of G.Hazarath Vs Vijaya

P.Amirthalingam Vs Nil

Khozaim a Vadnagarwala Vs Durriya Akbar Vadnagarwala