Madras High Court
G.R.Sridharan vs Parvathammal (Died) on 30 September, 2021
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
G.R.Sridharan ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Parvathammal (died)
2. Karunambal
3. Pankajam
4. Vijayakumar
5. Rasappa Gounder
6. Muthayal (died)
7. Arunachala Nadar
8. Potha Nadar
9. C.Sampath
10.G.K.Natarajan
11.Rajasekar
12.G.K.Krishnan
13.K.Arumugam
14.K.Kuppusamy
15.Sampath
16.S.Kandhakumar
17.G.U.Rajamani
18.Sethulakshmi
19.G.R.Chinnusamy
20.G.R.Ramasamy
21.G.R.Selvaraj
22.G.R.Subramaniam ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2012 passed in A.S.No.8 of
2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.63 of 1996 on the file of the II
Additional Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam.
For Appellant : M/s.A.K.Kumarasamy
Senior Counsel
for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondent : M/s.Tranquebar Dorai Vasu
-----
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the above Second appeal.
2. The only questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are,
whether a son born through the second wife is entitled to a share in the father's
property or not? and whether he is entitled to a share in the property through
Will executed by the Grandfather's Sister's property or not?
3. Before the Court, all the parties have admitted that the Will was
validly executed. As per the recitals of the Will, Ex.A1, the plaintiff, who is the
first grandson born to G.N.Ramasamy and all other male legal heirs are entitled
to equal share in the property bequeathed by the Testator of A1. In that event,
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
when it is the intention of the Testator through the valid registered Will to
bequeath the property in favour of the male heirs of Ramasamy, the fourth
defendant, who has admitted to be the son of Ramasamy, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, is also entitled to equal share in the property as per Will. After
execution of the Will, the property cannot be considered as an ancestral
property and that the illegitimate son is claiming his share in the ancestral
property. The admitted position is that the first wife of G.N.Ramasamy and the
father of the plaintiff and the sisters of the plaintiff, who were examined as
D.W.1 and D.W.2, categorically admit the solemnization of the marriage
between G.N.Ramasamy and the fourth defendant's mother namely, Sumathy.
In the eyes of Hindu Marriage Act, the second marriage may not be a valid
marriage, but yet, the factum that the fourth defendant born to G.N.Ramasamy
and lived as one of the family members for over three decades cannot be denied
and in fact, it was categorically admitted by the plaintiff himself that they were
living as a family together in the same house.
4. Therefore, the contention that the illegitimate son cannot claim any
share in the suit property cannot be sustained and the Court below has rightly
arrived at a conclusion that the fourth defendant, who born out of proved
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
marriage between Ramasamy and Sumathy is entitled to get a share in the
property of the father, which was bequeathed through the Will by Marakkal in
equal proportion.
5. I do not find any question of law much less the substantial question
of law arising out of the factual background of the case. The Second Appeal
does not merit admission and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.09.2021
asi
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The II Additional Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
asi
S.A.No.1000 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
30.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
