Madras High Court
Manjini (Died) vs Begum Subeda on 17 August, 2023
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2007
S.A.No.391 of 2007
1. Manjini (Died)
2. Angammal ...Appellants
1st appellant died , 2nd appellant is recorded as the LR's
of deceased 1st appellant vide order of Court dated 01.02.2023
made in Memo SR.No.3551 in SA.No.391 of 2007.
Vs.
1. Begum Subeda
2. Jayahasan (Major)
R2 declared as Major, his next friend and mother
Begum Subeda discharged from the guardianship Vide
Court order dated 25.06.2022 made in CMP.No.1703 & 1705
of 2020 in S.A.No.397 of 2007
3. The General Manager
Telephone Department
Cuddalore.
4. The Divisional Engineer
Telephone Department
Tindivanam.
5. The Sub-Divisional Engineer
Telephone Department
Tindivanam.
6. The Junior Engineer
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
Telephone Department
Tindivanam.
7. The Junior Telecom Officer
Tindivanam.
8. The Branch Manager
LIC Of India, Tindivanam
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.147 of 2003 on the file of the Additional
Sub Court @ Tindivanam, dated 09.08.2005 in dismissing the appeal against
the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.252 of 1998 dated 06.10.2003.
S.A.No.780 of 2007
1. Angammal
2. Manjini (Died) ...Appellants
2nd appellant died ,1st appellant is recorded as the
LR's of deceased 2nd appellant vide Order of Court dated
01.02.2023 made in Memo SR.No.3550 in SA.No.780 of 2007.
Vs.
Begum Subeda ...Respondent
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.146 of 2003 on the file of the Additional
Sub Court @ Tindivanam dated 09.08.2005 in confirming the Judgment and
decree in O.S.No.322 of 1999 dated 06.10.2003.
For Appellants : Mrs.V.Srimathi
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
(in both appeals)
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Devaraj
(in both appeals)
For R3 to R5 and R7 : Mr. K.Anbarasan
(in SA.No.391 of 2007)
For R6 : Exparte
(in SA.No.391 of 2007)
For R8 : Mr.P.G.Padmanabhan
(in SA.No.391 of 2007)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Second appeals are preferred by the parents of the deceased/Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran against the respondent/defendant. The suit in O.S.No.322 of 1999 was filed by the appellants seeking the relief to declare as the legal heir of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran. The another suit in O.S.No.252 of 1998 was filed by wife of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran seeking the relief to declare as legal heir of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeaychandran. Both the suits were tried together before the trial Court.
2. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Judge held that the mother, wife and son of the deceased are the legal heirs, accordingly, the suits were decreed.
3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
3. Challenging the said findings, the parents of the deceased preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.146 and 147 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Tindivanam wherein, the lower Appellate Judge independently analysed the facts and evidence and finally held that based on the agreement of marriage dated 30.09.1992, the respondent is the wife of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran and out of wedlock, they begotten a child on 15.10.1993. Hence, the learned Appellate Judge had confirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court.
4. Challenging the said findings, the appellants have preferred these second appeals and the same was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the Courts below are right in recognising the marriage between the first plaintiff, who is a Muslim and deceased Jeyasundaram, who is a Hindu, in the absence of registration under the Special Marriage Act ?.
(ii) Whether the Court below properly appreciated the evidence adduced with respect to the marriage between the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran and Begum Subeda said to have taken place at TTD in Andhra Pradesh ? And 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
(iii) Have the Courts below properly appreciated the validity of a registered agreement entered into by two parties who claim marriage under the said agreement?''
5. Heard both sides.
6. The deceased/Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran was working as Masthur in BSNL, Tindivanam Branch and he has taken a policy in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Further, the said Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran died and thereafter, the dispute arose between the parties with regard to receiving the death benefits of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran. But before the trial Court, it was held that the marriage between wife/Begum Subeda and the said deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran was proved by the wife/Begum subeda by way of Ex.A1/Marriage agreement and out of wedlock a child was born and copy of the birth certificate was produced before the trial Court. Though the said Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran and his wife along with their son were lived together for long years and the same was also proved by producing voter list. But the learned counsel for the appellants have objected the agreement 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007 of marriage/Ex.A1 stating that it is not a document and the respondent/wife belongs to a Muslim religion, the marriage ought to have been registered under the Special Marriage Act.
7. But before the trial Court, the wife/Begum subeda has produced the evidence to show that the agreement of marriage/Ex.A1 and they have lived together and begotten a child. Further,the wife/Begum subeda was married the deceased Jeyasundaran @ Jeyachandran at Tirupathi temple on 18.09.1992. Thereafter, the same was entered into by an agreement of marriage. Even though, the marriage is not registered, if the couples were lived together for long years as husband and wife under one roof and their cohabitation is sufficient. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Courts below is justifiable, which needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law (i) (ii) and (iii) are answered.
8. The following authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 549:-
15. It is well settled that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007 favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Although, the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place.
16. In Andrahennedige Dinohamy and Anr. v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and Ors.1, the Privy Council laid down the general proposition as under:
“…where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.”
17. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan2, once again it was laid down by the Privy Council as under:
“The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.”
18. In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others3, it was held by this Court that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where two partners have lived together for long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon the bastardy.1 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007
19. In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others4, this Court held as under:
“4. What has been settled by this Court is that if a man and woman live together for long years as husband and wife then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage existing between the two. But the presumption is rebuttable. [See: Gokul Chand v. Parvin Kumari – AIR 1952 231 : 1952 SCR 825]”
20. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Tulsa and Others v.
Durghatiya and Others5; Challamma v. Tilaga and Others6; Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another7 and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma8
9. The facts of the above Judgement is applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the marriage between the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandram and the Begum Subedam is a valid one. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings rendered by the Courts below.
10. Hence, now as on date, the mother, wife and son of the deceased are alive, so they are equally entitled to receive the benefits of the deceased Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran. Therefore, the defendants 3 to 5 and 7 and 8 in the suit in O.S.No.252 of 1998 are directed to disburse the amount to the mother, wife and son of the deceased/Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007 and with regard to pension of deceased is concerned, only wife/Begum subeda is entitled to receive. Further, son/Jeyahasan is entitled for the job under the compassionate ground. As the son of the deceased/ Jeyasundaram @ Jeyachandran is now attained majority, if the Rule permits, the authority concerned of BSNL are directed to appoint him in the suitable post. However, the suit filed by mother in O.S.No.322 of 1999 is dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the second appeals are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
17.08.2023 Speaking / Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index :Yes/No msrm To
1.The District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.
2.The Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section.
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007 msrm S.A.Nos.391 and 780 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2007 17.08.2023 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis