RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS versus M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 19-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 413 : 2024 INSC 47
Raja Gounder and Others
v.
M. Sengodan and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2024)
19 January 2024
[M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
A civil suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for partition 
and separate possession of plaint schedule properties. During 
the pendency of the suit, appellants were impleaded. The Trial 
Court recorded a categorical finding that appellant no.2 and 
respondent no.2 were not wives of MG, propositus of parties, and 
consequently, the status of the children through the extended family 
as coparceners was rejected. The issue for consideration is as to 
entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriage.
Headnotes
Partition – Partition and separate possession of plaint schedule 
properties – The Trial Court held that respondent No. 4 herein 
admittedly is the first and legally wedded wife of MG – Appellant 
No. 2 and respondent No. 2 did not produce evidence to prove 
the factum of the marriage with MG – The evidence adduced 
by the appellants or respondent Nos. 1 and 2, does not inspire 
the confidence of the Court to accord to them the status as 
wives of MG – The Trial Court records a categorical finding 
that appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 2 are not the wives 
of MG, and consequently, the status of the children through 
the extended family as coparceners was rejected – High Court 
accepted the view of the Trial Court – Propriety:
Held: A mere perusal of the preface to Ex. B-6, mortgage deed, 
would show that MG treated appellant No. 1, respondent No. 1 
and respondent No. 3 as his sons – The document was executed 
for himself and on behalf of his minor sons – The statement 
was made by MG during the subsistence of his interest in the 
property mortgaged – The appellants also rely on the patta 
dated 27.04.1984 (Ex. B-3) standing in the name of MG and 
414
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
his sons; the voters lists, viz., Exs. B-4 and B-5, to show that 
MG and his sons lived as a family – By applying ss.17 and 18 
of the Evidence Act, it is convincing that MG made a statement 
describing appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 as his sons 
and treated as an admission by record – This statement satisfies 
the ingredients of s.18 of the Evidence Act – Further, in the 
absence of contrary evidence and withdrawal of admission or 
explained through admissible evidence, the admission in the 
mortgage deed, viz., Ex. B-6, coupled with the joint patta and 
voters lists, declares the status of appellant No. 1, respondent 
No. 1, along with respondent No. 3 as the sons of MG – At 
this juncture, the status derived through an admission in Ex. 
B-3 vis-à-vis appellant No.1 as a natural corollary could be 
extended to appellant No.3 as a child/daughter of MG – This is 
an inescapable consequential conclusion which the Court has to 
record – Once the status of the parties, other than respondent 
No. 3, is established as the extended family of the propositus, 
irrespective of whether the marriages of appellant No. 2 and 
respondent No. 2 with MG are void or voidable, denying the 
children of MG a share in the property of notional partitioned in 
favour of MG, is unsustainable in law and fact – Also, applying the 
principle laid down in Revanasiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun 
and others on entitlement of share to the children of void and 
voidable marriages, the judgments under appeal are set aside. 
[Paras 15.1, 16, 17, 18]
Evidence Act, 1872 – Admission:
Held: Admission is a conscious and deliberate act and not 
something that could be inferred – An admission could be a positive 
act of acknowledgement or confession – To constitute an admission, 
one of the requirements is a voluntary acknowledgement through 
a statement of the existence of certain facts during the judicial or 
quasi-judicial proceedings, which conclude as true or valid the 
allegations made in the proceedings or in the notice – The formal act 
of acknowledgement during the proceedings waives or dispenses 
with the production of evidence by the contesting party – The 
admission concedes, for the purpose of litigation, the proposition 
of fact claimed by the opponents as true – An admission is also 
the best evidence the opposite party can rely upon, and though 
inconclusive, is decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn 
or proved erroneous by the other side. [Para 13.1]
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
415
Raja Gounder and Others v.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.