Pinnacle court said that illegitimate child’s cohabiting couple to urge assets share

In a crucial judgment referring to partition of property among Hindus, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that an offspring of a pair cohabiting for long without marriage would be entitled to a share within the family property.

Reversing a Kerala HC judgment that disallowed property share claim of an alleged illegitimate son of a pair who failed to marry, a bench of Justices S ABdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said the couple in question had cohabited for a really while to create their relationship pretty much as good as a marriage and hence, their son would be entitled to appropriate share within the ancestral property. 

Settling a 40 year-old dispute that oscillated between the court, tribunal and also the SC, the bench said, "We have also perused the evidence of the defendants. We are of the view that the defendants have didn't rebut the presumption in favour of a wedding between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty on account of their long cohabitation." 

The SC restored the judicature judgment which had decreed the suit in favour of partitioning the ancestral property with appropriate share to the son of the couple.

The SC said the documents produced by the so-called illegitimate son were much before the controversy arising between parties. the opposite side, children of the brother of the so-called illegitimate son's father. 

The bench said, "These documents, as well as the evidence of a witness, would show the long duration of cohabitation between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty as husband and wife. the primary plaintiff joined military service in 1963 and retired in 1979. Thereafter he has taken the steps to file a suit for partition of the suit schedule property." 

Reversing an attempt court decision, the HC had said that the primary plaintiff was the son of Damodaran. However, it said that the documents could prove that Damodaran had actually married Chiruthakutty which no presumption of a pre-­existing valid marriage between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty could arise. The HC opined that the position of the primary plaintiff to be of an love child.

That being so, the plaintiffs wouldn't be entitled for a share within the coparceny property since the wedding between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty wasn't a sound one. The HC remitted the matter back to the judicature for fresh consideration. The plaintiffs challenged the Remand order before SC, which had asked the HC to make your mind up the problem. 

The HC stuck to its earlier decision and ruled that the illegitimate son wasn't entitled to a share within the ancestral property. The SC reversed this decision of the HC.