http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M GOVINDARAJU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K MUNISAMI GOUNDER [D] & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/08/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)13

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The appellant,  M. Govindaraju,  was born  to Pappammal from the  loins of Munisami Gounder. The trial court as well as the  High Court  have neither  disputed the paternity nor the maternity of the appellant. He has been denied his share in the  joint Hindu  family property  owned by his father on the  sole  ground  that  when  begotten  no  valid  marriage subsisted between  his parents.  The trial  court was in his favour though  in giving  him legitimacy, but the High Court branded the  appellant  as  an  illegitimate  child  of  his parents and,  hence, not  entitled to claim partition of the joint Hindu  family property.  The said property consists of about 21  acres of  agricultural land in which the appellant claims 1/7th share.      Evidence Was  led by  the parties  on the issue whether Munisami Gounder  had validly  married Pappammal. It was not denied  by  either  side  that  beforehand  Pappammal  stood married to one Koola Gounder and after lining with him for a couple of  years, had  walked out  of his house to live with Munisami  Gounder   way-back  in  the  Year  1942/1943.  The evidence  of   P.W.  2  led  by  the  plaintiff  as  to  the performance of  the spoken of marriage by rites and rituals, or that  efforts were made to have the marriage of Pappammal with Koola  Gounder cancelled,  was  rejected  by  the  High Court. Be  that as  it may,  the  fact  found  remains  that Pappammal walked  out of  her husband’s  house  and  started living with Munisami Gounder in the year 1942/1943 and it is as a result of that union that the appellant was born.      The High  Court in  illegitimising the appellant, seems to have overlooked the caste factor which would have a great bearing in  order to  establish the relationship between the parties. They  were ’Gounder’,  necessarily falling  in  the classification of  ‘Shudras’. Hindu  law  is  clear  on  the subject that If a Shudra woman is turned out of the house by her husband,  or she  willfully  abandons  him  and  is  not pursued to  be brought back as wife, a divorce in fact takes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

place, sometimes  regulated by  custom, and then each spouse is entitled,  to re-arrange  his/her life  in marriage  with other marrying  partners. Walking  out of Pappammal from the house of  her first  husband Koola Gounder was irretrievable and irreversible, for it is in evidence that neither of them took interest in each other thereafter. The divorce was thus complete. Paternity of the appellant having not been denied, he was  treated as a son of his father. We would, therefore, think that  the trial  court was  right in  giving  him  the status as  a son of his father. In doing so, the trial court rightly took  in aid  the fact  that in  recognition of that status, the appellant was given his first cousin in marriage i.e.   Munisami’s   sister’s   daughter.   That   fact   was corroborative of  a valid  acknowledgement of  paternity and legitimacy. If  the people,  especially the  relatives,  had treated and acknowledged the appellant as the legitimate son of his  father by  forging a  bond of  matrimony of the sort aforementioned, it  is a  strong piece  of evidence  to hold that the appellant was a legitimate offspring of his father. The High  Court thus clearly fell in error in illegitimising him. We reverse that view.      For the  foregoing reasons,  we allow  this appeal, set aside the  impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the trial court, but without any order as to costs.