Indrani Vs Vellathal

 

Court: Madras High Court.

Citation: (1988) 1 MLJ 168.

Date of Judgement: 09/09/1987.

Appellant: Indrani.

Defendant: Vellathal and ors.

Bench: Justice Sathiadev

Statutes Referred: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Cases Referred:

  • Venkateswarulu v. Ramamma.
  • Pannalal v. the State of Bombay.

Facts:

  • Velusami Thevar was the son of Palanisami Thevar. Palasami Thevar died in 1973. The suit properties, in this case, belonged to Palanisami Thevar. The deceased left behind his son Velusami Thevar and Defendant nos. 1&3 as his heirs.
  • The 1st Defendant was the wife of Palanisami, and the 3rd Defendant was the minor daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of Palanisami.
  • Velusami was entitled to a 4/6th share in the properties left behind by his father. Defendant nos.1&3 were entitled to 1/6th share each.
  • The 1st Plaintiff was married to Velusami on the 6th of Vaikasi in 1964 at Palani as per the Hindu rites in the presence of friends and relatives. The 1st Plaintiff belonged to Pillai Caste, and theirs was a love marriage. Plaintiff nos.2to5 were their children. Velusami died in 1979. Hence the plaintiffs were his legal representatives.
  • According to the 1st Defendant, Velusami was married to Indirani (the 2nd Defendant) on 28.08.1968.
  • Upon the death of Velusami, the plaintiffs demanded the partition and separation of the properties. Since Defendant no.1 did not send a reply to the demand, the suit was filed.
  • The Trial Court had held – that the marriage between Velusami and the 1st Plaintiff was legal and Plaintiffs 2to5 were their children. The marriage between the 2nd Defendant and Velusami was not valid in law. The Plaintiffs 1to5 were entitled to 11/36th share in the items 1to6 and 8 of Schedule 1 and a portion of item 1 of schedule 2; Other than this, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in any of the other properties. The Plaintiffs were also entitled to rendition of account from the share allotted from 27/01/1979. The Respondent nos 1t05 in the Trial Court case filed a memorandum of cross-objection.
  • Second defendant in O.S. 506 of 1979 Sub Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 and 3 are the seven Defendants herein. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 and 3 are the seven respondents herein.  Second defendant was impleaded at the instance of the first defendant as she claimed to be married to Velusami, which was false.

Issue:

  • Whether 1st Plaintiff was lawfully married to Velusami?
  • Whether items 3, 9 and 10 in schedule I and a portion of item I in schedule II are the self-acquired properties of first defendant?

·      Is not item No. 7 in schedule I a property which belonged to Velusami, and which is available for partition?

The contention by the 1st Plaintiff:

  • She was married to Velusami in 1964 in Palani according to Hindu rites in front of family and friends.
  • Her marriage to Velusami was legal. Her claim to the properties was valid.
  • A ‘thali’ was tied at the time of her marriage.

The contention by the 1st Defendant:

  • The children born to the 1st Plaintiff were not Velusami’s, and that the 1st Plaintiff was a woman of loose character.
  • Velusami only had an illicit relationship with the 1st Plaintiff, and they were never legally married. Therefore the 1st Plaintiff had no claim to the suit properties.
  • The 2nd Defendant was married to Velusami at Palani on 28.08.1968 according to the Hindu rites and the practices and customs of their community. 2nd Defendant was the only legal wife of Palanisami.
  • Only items 1to8 in the Schedule 1 were the self-acquired properties of Palanisami and item nos. 8 to 10 was acquired by the 1st Defendant out of her stridhana funds.

The contention by the 2nd Defendant:

  • She was married to Velusami on 28.08.1968, according to Hindu rites and practices. She was always treated as the legally wedded wife of Velusami.
  • The 1st Plaintiff was never lawfully married to Velusami.
  • She, as the legal wife of Velusami, performed the last rites of the deceased Velusami.

Obiter Dicta:

  • In villages and hamlets, Marriage ceremonies are often very simple and are held in front of the deity that both parties have faith in, the parties exchange garlands and immediately worship the deity.
  • Exchange of garlands or putting a ring or tying a thali etc., are traditionally recognised stages of a marriage ceremony, which brings into existence a binding valid marriage.
  • The Defendants preferred not to thoroughly cross-examine Plaintiff and Plaintiff witnesses regarding the marriage ceremony between the 1st Plaintiff and Velusami.
  • The tying of a ‘thali’ is a crucial activity in 99% of Hindu marriages.
  • The 1st Defendant purchased items 9,10, and 11 from her own funds.

Judgement:

  • The 1st Plaintiff alone was the legally wedded wife of Velusami.
  • Property nos. 9,10, and 11 from schedule 1 belonged to the 1st Defendant.
  • Property no.7 belonged to Velusami and must be up for partition.

Rationale:

  • People in villages and hamlets, etc., take the help of local priests and brahmins to perform marriages that are fairly simplistic and unique to their respective caste, community, sect, etc.
  • Plaintiff witnesses 1&2 stated that the marriage between the 1st Plaintiff and Velusami had taken place in a temple.
  • It appeared that the Defendants’ lack of cross-examination was out of the concern that doing so would lead to the 1st Plaintiff and Plaintiff witnesses actually describing the marriage ceremony correctly, which would weaken the Defendant’s case.
  • The 1st Plaintiff had failed to prove that Palanasami used the money received from the sale of previous properties to buy subsequent properties.

Conclusion:

  • Marriage ceremonies and rites often take multiple different forms which suit the convictions and customs of different communities. Millions of Hindus perform marriage ceremonies within the temple precincts. Simple marriage ceremonies which involve only the exchange of garlands or rings or tying of ‘thali’ are also a valid form of marriages.

Prepared by Mihir Poojary.

Related Post