Deivanai Achi and Anr. Vs Chidambaram 

Case name: Deivanai Achi and Anr. Vs Chidambaram

Citation: AIR 1954 Mad 657

Bench: S Rao, Rajagopalan

Date of Decision: August 26, 1953

Relevant case: Kamani Devi v. Kameshwar Singh, 1946

Facts:

1. Plaintiff 1 for Himself and on behalf of his two minor sons, Plaintiffs 2 & 3 filed a suit in Session Court for the partition of some family properties. After the death of previous wife of Plaintiff 1, there was a marriage between him and Defendant 3 according to cult under the Anti Purohit Association.

2. Defendant 1 is the widow of Alagu Chetti, son of the Plaintiff 1, by his first wife, Nachi Ammai. Alagu Chetti died in 1942. The Defendant 2 is the minor son of Alagu Chetti and Defendant 1.

3. Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 3 went to Malacca, where Plaintiff 1 was carrying on some business. The Plaintiffs claimed in the plaint a partition of the properties specified in Schedules and for the allotment of 3/4th share to them. They also prayed to direct the Defendant 1 to account for the Jewels and cash mentioned in schedules, which, according to the Plaintiff’s statement, were in the possession of Defendant 1.

4. The Appeal was contested by Defendants 1 and 2. The plea of the Defendants was that there was no valid marriage between the Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 3, so they were not entitled to more than a half share in the family properties.

5. A Commissioner was appointed to make lists of inventory. There were 44 items, 27 items as per list I and 17 items as per list II in the inventory prepared by the Commissioner. It was claimed that Plaintiff’s wife stridhan, which constitute her separate property amounting to Rs. 50,000 came under the control of the first Plaintiff as trustee for her. The first Plaintiff should be directed to be responsible for that amount.

6. It was further claimed that the business in Malacca carried on by Plaintiff 1 under was in partnership with his divided brother also belongs to the joint family.

Issues involved:

  • Whether the marriage between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 3 was legal?
  • Whether the Plaintiff 1 is responsible for Nachi Ammai’s stridhan and Malacca’s business towards Defendants?

Rationale:

1. In this case it has to be assumed that, “There is no obligatory procedure laid down by the association itself for the marriage.”

2. It was argued that, “No religious ceremony was necessary for a marriage, if it confirms to any one of the eight forms of marriage recognised under Hindu law. The form used in this case confirms to be the ‘Gandharva’ form of marriage and no religious rites are prescribed for it. All that is necessary for this form of marriage is an agreement between the two people which is the outcome of love.

3. In 1946, the Patna High Court in Kamani Devi v. Kameshwar Singh, held that the relationship of husband and wife, created by Gandharva marriage is binding. The husband, the court ruled, cannot escape his responsibility of financially caring for his wife married in Gandharva form.

4. Court states that, “the Malacca business was joint family business and the immovable property acquired those assets and described in Schedules were properties of the joint family in which the Defendants were entitled to a share. As the firm was dissolved, the Defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to a share in the assets of the Malacca firm, obtained by Plaintiff 1 on partition with his brother.

5. The counsel contended Nachiammai’s stridhan be a debt of the entire family, which was payable by the family to the second defendant. Regarding these, court states that the account was settled by Alagu Chetti during his lifetime.

6. The amount claimed was refused as there was no demand for it before and that there was no legal basis to direct payment of any amount. It was also proved by the evidence that Defendant 1 has been getting some income from the family properties during that period. During the marriage of the Defendant 1 on the ground that the amount of the stridhan belonged to Nachiammai and that there was no proof that the amount still remained unpaid when Nachiammai died.”

Obiter dicta:

Following is described as the procedure of marriages under cult of Anti Purohit Association in this case: “The President and Secretaries are elected from among the members for this Anti Purohit Association. 

The President and the Secretaries will issue invitations, to quote his words, mentioning the names of the bridegroom and the bride and the date, and place of marriage. Near relatives of parties, if any, will also join in the said invitation. Such of them, who could not be present on the occasion, would send congratulatory messages on the fixed day, at the fixed hour in the presence of the gathering. 

Then in the presence of the entire gathering the bride and the bridegroom will exchange garlands and rings they will read a special form of declaration to each other. Such a declaration would be printed and circulated among all those present at the marriage. Congratulatory messages received would be read. There will also be speeches congratulating the parties concerned. Then there will be a dinner. The factum of marriage would be communicated to all papers with the photos of the parties concerned.”

Judgement:

In these regards, the Bench dismissed the appeal with costs of Defendants 1 and 2.

Conclusion:

This case arises out of the Appeal against a suit for partition of family properties by the Plaintiff, who married Defendant 3 under the cult of Anti Purohit Association.

The other Defendants contested that this marriage was invalid as there were no rituals performed on the basis of Hindu marriage act and moreover both the parties belongs to different castes. So the Plaintiffs are not entitled to share in family properties.

The court disallowed the appeal, referring the precedents and states that these type of marriage comes under the Gandharva form of marriage which falls under the eight forms of marriage recognised by Hindu law.

Moreover the Plaintiffs have no account regarding the stridhan towards the Defendants as there is no proof that the amount still remained unpaid and there was no legal basis to direct payment of any amount. Plaintiff’s son, Alagu Chetti settled the accounts during his lifetime.

Drafted By: Param Mansinghka

Edited By: Tanvi Mahajan, Publisher, Law Insider

Published On: February 14, 2022 at 22:00 IST

Related Post