Issue of illegitimate children's rights in father's ancestral property is required to be heard early: Supreme Court

Issue of illegitimate children's rights in father's ancestral property is required to be heard early: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made a reference on Wednesday to the issue of illegitimate children's rights to their father's ancestral property in the case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011) 11 SCC 1. The case is still pending consideration by a larger bench. Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu Patil, who appeared for a party in the civil appeal, informed the bench that the case has been pending for 11 years and has ramifications in a variety of areas.

"Mr. Basava S. Prabhu Patil, learned counsel states that the legal issue in the aforesaid matter is pending consideration before a larger Bench of three Judges from quite some time, i.e. 11 years and has an impact on many matters. Since there are now different Benches constituted to hear the reference matters, it may be advisable to put a quietus to the issue so that the matters pending in this Court or in the High Courts can be dealt with and thus the reference in the case of Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs. Mallikarjun & Ors. (supra) is required to be listed at an early date." The division bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, also further stated that "The effect of this is that the judgment can be implemented qua all other aspects, except the aforesaid which will have to await the decision of the larger Bench. We are told that some parties/Lrs. have passed away. Lrs. Of those deceased parties be brought on record."

The Supreme Court ruled in Bharatha Matha & others vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan & others, AIR 2010 SC 2685, and Jinia Keotin vs. Kumar Sitaram (2003), 1 SCC 730, that children born out of a void marriage were not entitled to inherit ancestral coparcenary property and could only claim a share in their father's self acquired property. In Revanasiddappa, a two-judge bench ruled that such children have a right to whatever becomes their parents' property, whether self-acquired or inherited. In the above-mentioned case, the matter was referred to a three-judge bench because the views of the two benches differed.

Case Details: Sharanabasappa vs. Nagendra

Citation: CA 886–887/2016

 

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy