In a significant ruling on Hindu succession law, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has declared that a son born from a void marriage is entitled to a 5/6th share in his deceased father’s estate, which includes the shares inherited from his paternal grandmother and stepmother. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, held that a fresh suit to set aside a compromise decree entered into during the son’s minority without the court’s leave is maintainable.
The court passed a preliminary decree modifying the trial court’s order, determining the respective shares of the parties and directing the lower court to proceed with the final division of properties, thereby bringing a potential end to litigation spanning over three decades.
Background of the Case
The dispute originates from the estate of Chennupati Kesava Rao, who died intestate on May 31, 1990. Kesava Rao was first married to Chennupati Pushpavathi, with whom he had no children. On October 2, 1987, during the subsistence of his first marriage, he married Chennupati Manikyamba @ Mani. The appellant, Chennupati Naga Venkata Krishna, was born from this second union on October 1, 1988.
At the time of Kesava Rao’s death, he was survived by his mother (Ravamma), his first wife (Pushpavathi), and the appellant. The respondent, Chennupati Jagan Mohan Rao, is the son of Kesava Rao’s elder brother.
Following Kesava Rao’s death, two lawsuits concerning the property were filed and concluded with compromise decrees while the appellant was a minor. The first suit, O.S. No. 667 of 1990, resulted in a compromise decree on September 9, 1993, which provided a sum of Rs. 5,50,000 to the appellant. A subsequent suit, O.S. No. 552 of 1994, filed to set aside the first compromise, also ended in another compromise decree on July 7, 1995. In this second compromise, certain properties were allotted to the appellant in lieu of the cash settlement.
Upon attaining majority, the appellant filed a fresh suit, O.S. No. 197 of 2009, seeking to cancel the 1995 compromise decree, arguing it was illegal and void as it was made during his minority without the mandatory leave of the court. He sought a declaration of his absolute ownership over the properties and recovery of possession. The XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, partially decreed the suit, setting aside the compromise but holding that the appellant was entitled to only a 1/3rd share in his father’s property and must initiate separate legal proceedings to claim it. This judgment led to the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, argued that the compromise decree was not binding as it was entered into without the court’s leave as mandated by Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). He contended that the appellant, being the son of Kesava Rao, is granted legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, he is entitled to inherit not only his father’s share but also the shares of his paternal grandmother (Ravamma) and his stepmother (Pushpavathi), both of whom died intestate, making him the absolute owner of the entire estate. He further submitted that the respondent’s claim of succession through wills was never proven.
Conversely, Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, argued that the suit was barred by Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC, which prohibits a fresh suit to set aside a decree based on a compromise. He contended that the only remedy was to file an application in the original suit. The respondent also claimed testamentary succession, alleging that both Ravamma and Pushpavathi had executed wills in his favour, thereby precluding any claim by the appellant under the rules of intestate succession.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court formulated five points for determination, focusing on the maintainability of the suit, the validity of the wills, and the extent of the appellant’s inheritance rights.
1. On Maintainability of the Suit: The court held that the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC does not apply to a compromise entered into on behalf of a minor without the court’s sanction. It reasoned that Order 32 Rule 7 CPC makes such a compromise voidable at the option of the minor. The judgment states, “…the plaintiff being minor at the time of the compromise which was entered without leave of the court, he on attaining the majority, within the period of limitation, could file the suit for cancellation of the compromise decree… O.S.No.197 of 2009 was not barred by Order 23 Rule 3A CPC.”
2. On Testamentary vs. Intestate Succession: The court rejected the respondent’s claim of succession through wills. It observed that the respondent failed to produce any will or lead any evidence to prove their existence and execution as required by law. The court found no merit in the argument that the appellant had admitted the will in his plaint, stating, “When read as a whole, the referred part of the plaint, we are of the considered view that the para 5 of the plaint does not contain any admission by the plaintiff-appellant of any will(s).” The court concluded it was a case of intestate succession.
3. On the Appellant’s Share in the Estate: This formed the central part of the court’s analysis. The court affirmed that the appellant, though born of a void marriage, is conferred with legitimacy by Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and is entitled to inherit the property of his “parents.”
- Share from Father (Kesava Rao): Upon Kesava Rao’s intestate death, his Class-I heirs—mother (Ravamma), wife (Pushpavathi), and son (appellant)—each inherited a 1/3rd share.
- Share from Paternal Grandmother (Ravamma): Following Ravamma’s death, her 1/3rd share devolved as per Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Her heirs included the appellant (as son of her predeceased son Kesava Rao) and the respondent (as son of her other son). Therefore, they both inherited equally from her share, each receiving 1/6th of the total estate.
- Share from Stepmother (Pushpavathi): The court determined that a stepmother is not a “parent” for the purpose of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it held that the appellant, as a stepson, would fall under the category of “heirs of the husband” under Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. Since Pushpavathi inherited the property from her husband and died issueless, her 1/3rd share devolved upon the heirs of her husband. As the son of her predeceased husband, the appellant was entitled to her entire 1/3rd share.
The court calculated the appellant’s total share as 1/3 (from father) + 1/6 (from grandmother) + 1/3 (from stepmother), amounting to a 5/6th share. The respondent was entitled to the remaining 1/6th share inherited from his grandmother, Ravamma.
Final Decision
Exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to ensure complete justice, the High Court modified the trial court’s decree. The final judgment is as follows:
- The trial court’s decision to set aside the compromise decree dated July 7, 1995, in O.S. No. 552 of 1994 was affirmed.
- A preliminary decree was passed declaring the appellant-plaintiff entitled to a 5/6th share and the respondent-defendant to a 1/6th share in the combined properties from both the 1994 and 2009 suits.
- The trial court was directed to proceed with passing a final decree by metes and bounds based on these shares, obviating the need for a new partition suit.
- The appeal was partly allowed, and the cross-objections filed by the respondent were rejected. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
