LexV.R. SADAGOPA NAIDU versus BAKTHAVATSALAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:, •. "' ~- i . . 1~ 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURf REPORTS 911 iary value but is one upon which the claim of the respondent no. 1 for the surcharge is based. Mis- construction of such a document would thus be an error of law and the High Court in second appeal would be entitled to correct it. This is what in fact has been done. There is no substance in the appeals which are dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed. V.R. SADAGOPA NAIDU v. BAKTHAVATSALAM & ANR. (P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Hindu Law--Jntercaste marriage-Marriage before the Act- If the Act has retrospective 4fect-The Hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949 (Act 21 of 1949), s. 3. The minor respondent no. 1 brought a suit for partition on a claim that on his birth he became a member of the joint Hindu family which his father Sadagopa Naidu, the first defendant, in the suit, formed with the other nine persons impleaded as de- fendants 2 to 10. His case was that Padmavathi and Sada Gopa were validly married on June 24, 1948 and of that marriage he was born. The case of the defendant was that the impugned marriage was not a valid marriage as Padmavathi was a Brahmin girl and Sada Gopa a Shudra. On these facts the Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the respondent no. I. The Trial Court was of opinion that the marriage would be invalid according to the Hindu Law as it stood before the Hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949. It held however that the position had been entirely changed by s. 3 of the Hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949 and that the marriage was validated by the Act of 1949. On appeal by the defendants, the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence this appeal. Held: (i) The Hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949 was however in terms retrospective and validated marriages that had taken place before the Act between parties belonging to different 1963 Bhusawal Borough Municipality v. Amalgamated Electricity Co., Ltd. & Anr. Mudholkar J. 1963 December I 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] castes, sub-castes and sects. It is idle to say that the object of the legislature was only to regularise the status of the Husband and v. R. Sadagopa the Wife. That certainly was part of the object. But equally Naidu important, or perhaps more important object was that the children 1963 v. · of the marriages would become legitimate. Bakthavatsa/am On the facts of this case it was held that the impugned marriage & Anr. was a valid Hindu marriage and the respondent no. I a legitimate son of Sadagopa with all the rights of a coparcener in regard to the joint family properties and other matters. Das Gupta J. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1959 of the Madras High "' Court in Appeal No. 282 of 1952. G.S. Pathak, B. Dutta, T.R. Ramchandra, J.B. - Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for " the appellants. H.N. · Sanyal, Solicitor General of India, K. Jaya- ram and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for respondent no. 1. N. Panchapagesa Iyer, M.P. Swami and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent no. 2. December 11, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J.-Thirteen-month old Bhaktha- vathsalam brought this suit for partition on a claim that on his birth he became a member of the joint Hindu family which his father V.R. Sadagopa Naidu, the first defendant, in the suit, formed with the other nine persons impleaded as defendents 2 to 10. His case is that Padmavathi and Sadagopa were validly married on June 24, 1948 and of that marriage he was born. The main contention of the contesting defendants is that there was never any marriage of Padmavathi and Sadagopa and that Bhakthavath- salam is not Sadagopa's son. On both these points the Trial Court found the plaintiffs' case proved and rejected the defence pleas. At the trial a further point was raised that even if any marriage between Padmavathi and Sadagopa f: 5.S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 913 did take place that was not a valid marriage as Padma- 1963 vathi was a Brahmin girl and Sadagopa a Shudra. -- The Trial Court was of opinion that Padmavathi V. R. Sadagopa was . a Brahmin, and as admittedly Sadagopa was Naidu a Shudra, the marriage would be invalid according w to the Hindu Law as it stood before the Hindu Bakthavatsalam Marriages Validity Act, 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.