Summary
Documentary statements by a deceased common predecessor, made while he held an interest in the suit property, established the claimants as his children for succession purposes. The children were entitled to equal shares in the predecessor’s share, although the alleged marriages were not proved.
Issues
- Whether the partition claim could be moulded on the evidence of the deceased propositus’s treatment of the parties as his children, despite failure to prove the alleged marriages.
- Whether the children could share in the propositus’s notional share of the suit properties.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17 and 18, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The registered mortgage deed contained the propositus’s statement identifying the claimants as his sons. Made while he held an interest in the mortgaged suit property, the statement was an admission under Section 18 and bound those claiming through him; the supporting patta and electoral rolls corroborated it. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.2, 14, 15, 15.1, 16)
- Section 16, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Applying Revanasiddappa, the Court held that children of void or voidable marriages may claim in the property of their parents, including the parent’s share determined on notional partition, and not in another person’s property. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Section 6(3), Hindu Succession Act, 1956The Court applied the notional-partition principle to identify the propositus’s share and then distributed that share equally among his children, including his daughter. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Held
- A statement by a predecessor-in-interest, made during the continuance of his proprietary interest and satisfying Section 18 of the Evidence Act, may operate as an admission against persons claiming through him. Here, the propositus’s registered mortgage deed identified the claimants as his children; the joint patta and electoral rolls corroborated the admission. (¶¶ 14, 15, 15.1, 16)
- Failure to prove the alleged marriages did not defeat the children’s claims on this record. The admission and corroborating documents established their status as the propositus’s children, and the children of void or voidable marriages were entitled to share in their parent’s property, including the share notionally allotted to him, but not in another person’s property. (¶¶ 15.1, 16, 17)
- In a partition suit, the courts must mould relief to the circumstances established by the evidence. The schedule properties were first partitioned between the propositus and Respondent No. 3; the propositus’s share was then divided equally among Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; the judgments below were set aside and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on the stated basis. No costs.