Section 6 Hindu Succession Act | Legitimate Children of Second Wife Entitled to Ancestral Property Despite Father’s Relinquishment Deed : AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a second appeal, affirming that legitimate children born to a second wife are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property. The judgment underscores the legal recognition of children from a second marriage under Hindu succession laws and the burden of proof on parties disputing legitimacy or relinquishment deeds.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case revolves around a partition suit filed by plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7 against the sole defendant (appellant herein) for division of two properties: a vacant site (plaint ‘A’ schedule) and a house (plaint ‘B’ schedule). The plaintiffs contended that the properties were ancestral and sought partition into eight equal shares, with one share each for plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 and the defendant. Plaintiff No. 1, the father, claimed that after the death of his first wife, he married Raghava (his second wife) and had six daughters (plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7) through her. The defendant, his son from the first wife, allegedly obtained a relinquishment deed fraudulently by misrepresenting its contents to plaintiff No. 1.

Key Facts

• Properties in Dispute:
  • Plaint ‘A’ schedule: Vacant site of 780 sq. yards in Gaigolupadu Village, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal.
  • Plaint ‘B’ schedule: House bearing D.No. 69-6-125 on a 300 sq. yard site in the same locality.
• Family Structure:
  • Plaintiff No. 1: Father, married twice.
  • Defendant: Son from the first wife.
  • Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7: Daughters from the second wife, Raghava.
• Alleged Fraud:
  • Plaintiff No. 1 claimed the defendant obtained his thumb impressions on papers under the guise of court filings, later using them to execute a relinquishment deed dated 16.03.1998 for Rs. 80,000.
  • Plaintiff No. 1 denied receiving the consideration and later executed a registered cancellation deed dated 04.04.1998 to nullify the relinquishment deed.
• Legal Notice:
  • Plaintiffs issued a legal notice (Ex.A-1, dated 27.04.1998) demanding partition, which the defendant acknowledged (Ex.A-2) but did not reply to.

Procedural History

• 17.02.2005: Trial Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada) dismissed the suit (O.S.No.171 of 1998).
• 22.03.2012: First Appellate Court (III Additional District Judge, Kakinada) allowed the appeal (A.S.No.47 of 2005), reversing the trial court’s decree.
• During Appeal Proceedings:
  • Plaintiff No. 1 died; respondent No. 8 (his second wife) and respondent No. 9 (another daughter) were impleaded as legal representatives.
• 15.06.2026: High Court dismissed the second appeal (SA No. 817 of 2012) at the admission stage.

Relief Sought

The plaintiffs sought:

1. Partition of the suit properties into eight equal shares.
2. Allotment of one share each to plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 and the defendant.
3. A final decree for separate possession.
4. Costs of the suit.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, born to plaintiff No. 1 through his second wife, are legitimate children entitled to a share in ancestral property under Hindu succession laws, and whether the relinquishment deed dated 16.03.1998 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant (Defendant)

1. Illegitimacy of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7:

   • Contended that Raghava was plaintiff No. 1’s concubine, not his wife, and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 were not his legitimate children.
   • Relied on Balakrishnan and others Vs. Selvi and others (SA No. 725 of 2001), where the Madras High Court held that illegitimate children cannot claim rights in ancestral property during the father’s lifetime.
   • Cited Vasant Ramchandra Alias Chander Vs. Gurudas Vasantrao Yelvande (Civil Revision Application No. 861 of 2014), which limited the rights of children from void marriages to the father’s separate property, accruing only after his death.

2. Validity of Relinquishment Deed:

   • Argued that plaintiff No. 1 executed the relinquishment deed (dated 16.03.1998) for Rs. 80,000, thereby relinquishing his rights in the properties.
   • Cited Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randir Singh & Ors (AIR 2010 SC 2807), which held that a sale deed cannot be cancelled except by a competent court.

3. Burden of Proof:

   • Contended that the plaintiffs failed to prove the legitimacy of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 or the invalidity of the relinquishment deed.

For the Respondents (Plaintiffs)

1. Legitimacy of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7:

   • Plaintiff No. 1 asserted in the plaint and evidence that he married Raghava after his first wife’s death and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 were born to her.
   • Ex.A-1 (legal notice) and Ex.A-2 (acknowledgment) corroborated the marriage and paternity.
   • The defendant failed to produce evidence disproving the legitimacy of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 or the validity of the marriage.

2. Fraudulent Relinquishment Deed:

   • Plaintiff No. 1 denied receiving Rs. 80,000 and claimed the deed was obtained fraudulently.
   • The defendant did not produce the relinquishment deed before the trial court, shifting the burden of proof onto him.
   • Even if the deed were valid, plaintiff No. 1 could only relinquish his undivided share, not the shares of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7.

3. Ancestral Property:

   • Both properties were purchased by the grandfather of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant, making them ancestral.
   • Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, as legitimate children, were entitled to equal shares alongside plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court examined the following key aspects:

1. Legitimacy of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7:

   • The plaint (paragraph 3) and Ex.A-1 (legal notice) explicitly stated that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 were born to plaintiff No. 1 through his second wife, Raghava.
   • The defendant acknowledged the legal notice (Ex.A-2) but did not dispute the paternity or marriage in his reply.
   • P.W.1 (plaintiff No. 1) and P.W.2 testified that plaintiff No. 1 married Raghava after his first wife’s death and had six daughters through her.
   • The defendant failed to produce evidence to disprove the marriage or legitimacy, instead making belated and unsubstantiated claims that Raghava was a concubine.
   • The Court held that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 were legitimate children of plaintiff No. 1, entitled to shares in the ancestral property.

2. Validity of the Relinquishment Deed:

   • The defendant claimed plaintiff No. 1 executed the relinquishment deed (dated 16.03.1998) for Rs. 80,000, but failed to produce the deed before the trial court.
   • Plaintiff No. 1 denied receiving the consideration and alleged fraud, shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant.
   • Even if the deed were valid, plaintiff No. 1 could only relinquish his undivided share (1/8th), not the shares of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7.
   • The Court relied on Suhrid Singh to emphasize that cancellation of a deed requires a competent court’s order, and the plaintiffs did not seek such relief.

3. Ancestral Property and Succession:

   • The properties were purchased by the grandfather of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant, making them ancestral.
   • The Court distinguished the cited precedents:
     • Balakrishnan and Vasant Ramchandra dealt with illegitimate children or children from void marriages, whereas plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 were legitimate.
     • Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006 (5) SCC 558) and Rathnamma & Ors. Vs. Sujathamma ((2019) 19 SCC 714) were inapplicable as they involved disputed marriages or burden of proof issues not present here.
   • Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, as legitimate children, were entitled to equal shares alongside plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant.

4. Procedural Compliance:

   • The First Appellate Court’s findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the CPC to warrant interference in a second appeal.
   • The appellant’s argument regarding the validity of the Will executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 8 was not pleaded in the grounds of appeal and could not be raised at the argument stage.

"The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law."

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, confirming the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree. The Court held:

1. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 are legitimate children of plaintiff No. 1, born to his second wife, Raghava, and are entitled to equal shares in the ancestral properties.
2. The relinquishment deed dated 16.03.1998 is not binding on plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, as the defendant failed to produce it or prove its validity.
3. The properties are ancestral, and all legitimate children (plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, the defendant, and respondent No. 9) are entitled to equal shares.
4. No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Burden of Proof in Disputing Legitimacy

• Parties disputing legitimacy must produce substantive evidence to rebut claims of marriage or paternity.
• Failure to reply to legal notices or acknowledgment of notices can be construed as admission of facts pleaded therein.
• Courts may draw adverse inferences against parties who raise belated or unsubstantiated claims without evidence.

Relinquishment Deeds and Ancestral Property

• A relinquishment deed affects only the undivided share of the executant, not the shares of other co-parceners.
• Non-production of crucial documents (e.g., relinquishment deeds) shifts the burden onto the claiming party to prove their validity.
• Fraudulent execution of deeds must be specifically pleaded and proved, with the burden resting on the party alleging fraud.

Scope of Second Appeals under Section 100 CPC

• Second appeals are maintainable only on substantial questions of law, not on factual appreciation or evidence re-evaluation.
• Findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are final unless perverse or based on no evidence.
• Procedural compliance is critical; arguments not pleaded in the grounds of appeal cannot be raised at the argument stage.