REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANR. versus MALLIKARJUN AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 31-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 675 
REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANR. 
v. 
MALLIKARJUN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 2011 
MARCH 31, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
B 
s.16(3) - Right of illegitimate children in the coparcenary c 
property of their parents - Whether illegitimate children are 
entitled to a share in the coparcenary property or whether their 
share is limited only to the self-acquired property of their 
parents uls.16(3) - Held: s.16(3) makes it clear that a child of 
a void or voidable marriage can only claim rights to the 0 
property of his parents, and no one else - The legislature has 
advisedly used the word "property" and has not qualified it with 
either self-acquired property or ancestral property - It has 
been kept broad and general -
The issues relating to the 
extent of property rights conferred on such children u/s. 16(3) 
E 
of the amended Act were discussed in detail in the case of 
Jinia Keotin case wherein it was held that in the light of 
express mandate of the legislature itself, there is no room for 
according upon such children, who but for s. 16 would have· 
been branded as illegitimate, any further rights than envisaged F 
therein by resorting to any presumptive or inferential process 
of reasoning, having recourse to the mere object or purpose 
of enacting s. 16 - Article 39 (f) must be kept in mind by the 
Court while interpreting the provision of' s. 16(3) of the Act -
Apart from Article 39(f), Article 300A a/so comes into play while 
interpreting the concept of property rights - Supreme Court G 
in the case of * Jinia Keotin and Bharatha Matha took narrow 
view of s. 16(3) of the Act -
Therefore, matter needs 
reconsideration and is referred to larger bench - Reference 
675 
H 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
to larger bench - Hindu Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 300A, 39(f). 
s. 16 - Status of illegitimate children and their right in 
property of their parents - Effect of amendment of s.16 -
8 
Held: The amendment to s. 16 of the Act was introduced by 
Act 60 of 76 - With the amendment of s.16(3), the common 
law view that the offsprings of marriage which is void and 
voidable are illegitimate 'ipso-Jure' has changed completely 
-
The status of such children which has been legislatively 
declared legitimate must be recognised and simultaneously 
C law recognises the rights of such children in the property of 
their parents - This is a law to advance the socially beneficial 
purpose of removing the stigma of illegitimacy on such 
children who are as innocent as any other children. 
D 
Interpretation of statutes: Purposive interpretation - Held: 
Courts cannot interpret a socially beneficial legislation on the 
basis as if the words therein are cast in stone - Such 
legislation must be given a purposive interpretation to further 
and not to frustrate the eminently desirable social purpose -
E Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.16(3). 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 300A, 39(f) - Held: 
Right to property is no longer fundamental but it is a 
Constitutional right and Article 300A contains a guarantee 
against deprivation of property right save by authority of law. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether illegitimate children are 
entitled to a share in the coparcenary property or whether 
their share is limited only to the self-acquired property of 
G their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hinau Marriage 
Act, 1955. 
Referring the matter to Larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 
H 1955 makes it very clear that a child of a void or voidable 
• 
REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANR. v. MALLIKARJ.UN 
677 
AND ORS. 
marriage can only claim rights to the property of his 
A 
parents, and no one else. However, the legislature has 
advisedly used the word "property" and has not qualified 
it with either self-acquired property or ancestral property. 
It has been kept broad and general. The issues relating 
to the extent of property rights conferred on such 
B 
children under Section 16(3) of the amended Act were 
discussed in detail in the case of Jinia Keotin case. It was 
held in that case that in the light of an express mandate 
of the legislature itself, there is no room for according 
upon such children, who but for Section 16 would have c 
been branded as illegitimate, any further rights than 
envisaged therein by resorting to any presumptive or 
inferent

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