Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 630 (KER)

G. K. Jagannatha Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lekshmi

2026-05-22

Easwaran S

body2026
JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. These appeals are from two suits and one counter claim. The appellant is the brother of late Raghunatha Rao. O.S. No. 172 of 2016 was filed by the wife and son of late Raghunatha Rao claiming that they have succeeded to the estate of Raghunatha Rao and are in possession of the property and that the defendant/appellant herein is intending to disturb the said possession and, therefore, prayed for injunction. A counter claim was lodged by the appellant stating that the 1 st plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of late Raghunatha Rao and that the appellant alone is the legal heir since Raghunatha Rao died without marrying. The appellant had also filed O.S. No. 217 of 2016, a suit for declaration that the appellant is the legal heir and entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Raghunatha Rao. 2. The dispute essentially therefore was whether the 1 st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Raghunatha Rao. According to the 1st plaintiff, the marriage took place in the year 1995 and that Raghunatha Rao expired in the year 2014 and till such time they were residing together and there was no dispute from the appellant. In support of their claim that the 1 st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Raghunatha Rao, cogent evidence was adduced by her including the photographs of the wedding which took place on 29.06.1995 and also evidence of PW8, who is a photographer, who took the photographs of the marriage. PW2 and PW3 were also examined to show that the marriage between late Raghunatha Rao and the 1 st plaintiff was conducted at Gayathri Kalyanamandapam, Madhurai. PW5 and PW9 were also examined to prove the same. 2.1. The Trial Court accepted the said evidence and found that the marriage between Raghunatha Rao and the 1 st plaintiff was solemnized after following the customary rites prevailing among the Kannada Brahmin community. Accordingly, O.S. No. 172 of 2016 was decreed, counter claim was dismissed and O.S. No. 217 of 2016 was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred three appeals; A.S. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2023 which were all dismissed by judgment dated 31.01.2026 and hence, these appeals. 3. Accordingly, O.S. No. 172 of 2016 was decreed, counter claim was dismissed and O.S. No. 217 of 2016 was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred three appeals; A.S. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2023 which were all dismissed by judgment dated 31.01.2026 and hence, these appeals. 3. In these appeals, the appellant contends that the validity of a marriage cannot be considered by the Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 . Since the appellant is the sole legal heir of deceased Raghunatha Rao, he is entitled to inherit the estate. Thus, it is contended that when the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding the validity of marriage, the judgments are liable to be interfered with. 4. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the plea that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of a marriage in view of the bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , is no longer res integra. In Joseph v. Marium Thomas [ 2006 (1) KLT 894 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that if a dispute has arisen between persons other than husband and wife, the bar under Section 7 of the , is not attracted. 5. S. Bhanumathi @ Lekshmi, the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 produced a series of documents which clearly show the factum of marriage between herself and late Raghunatha Rao. The question to be considered by this Court is, in the light of unimpeachable evidence adduced by the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 172 of 2016, whether the appellant is entitled for a declaration as sought for by him? 6. Pertinently, the appellant claims that he is the sole legal heir of deceased Raghunatha Rao because Raghunatha Rao died without marriage and he was not having any issues and, therefore, the appellant – the brother, being the Class II heir, is entitled to inherit the properties of late Raghunatha Rao. However, the Trial Court did not grant any declaration on the ground that the evidence produced by the 1 st plaintiff in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 would unequivocally show that there was a factum of marriage between herself and late Raghunatha Rao. However, the Trial Court did not grant any declaration on the ground that the evidence produced by the 1 st plaintiff in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 would unequivocally show that there was a factum of marriage between herself and late Raghunatha Rao. The evidence adduced by the 1 st plaintiff was accepted in terms of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . But then, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court found that insofar as the reliefs sought for in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 are concerned, the status and the validity of marriage is irrelevant. Surprisingly, both the Courts were unanimous in their finding that the validity of marriage is to be adjudicated by the Family Court under Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , which this Court cannot subscribe to in the light of the decision reported in Joseph (supra). 7. According to Sri. Krishna Mani B., the learned Counsel for the appellant, the trial court erred in not granting a declaration as sought for by the appellant. He further pointed out that the trial court could not have decided the factum of marriage without entering into the finding that the marriage was conducted by following religious ceremonies. 8. As regards O.S. No. 172 of 2016, there cannot be any dispute that the suit is only for injunction simpliciter and that the Courts below concurrently found that the respondents are in possession of the plaint schedule property and, therefore, granted the injunction, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . Therefore, the findings in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 as far as the possession of the plaintiffs are concerned, having been purely rendered on the appreciation of evidence, leading to the conclusion by this Court that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in RSA Nos. 268 and 270 of 2026. 9. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised across the bar, this court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 10. In Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others [(2008) 4 SCC 420] the Supreme Court held that one who denies the existence of marriage is under the duty to prove that the marriage is invalid. 11. 10. In Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others [(2008) 4 SCC 420] the Supreme Court held that one who denies the existence of marriage is under the duty to prove that the marriage is invalid. 11. In Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Others [2022 SCC Online 737], citing the abovesaid decisions and relying on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , the Supreme Court held in the facts of the said case that there was a presumption of the marriage between the parents of the plaintiffs on the ground of their long cohabitation status, entitling their offspring to claim their share in the suit schedule property. 12. In the present case, on the basis of plethora of evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the Trial Court held that there is enough evidence to show that late Reghunatha Rao had married Bhanumathi, the 1 st plaintiff. This Court is not persuaded to revisit the said findings in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the appellant. 13. As regards the counter claim in O.S. No. 172 of 2016 and the entitlement of the appellant for a declaratory relief under O.S. No. 217 of 2016, what remains to be seen is, whether the said issue requires a consideration at the hands of the Trial Court once again? Though the Courts below have declined jurisdiction on the ground that the validity of a marriage between late Raghunatha Rao and the 1 st respondent herein ought to have been agitated before the Family Court, in the light of the decision in Joseph (supra), the said finding cannot be sustained. Even if this Court were to hold that the said findings are unsustainable, the larger issue to be considered is, whether the appellant is entitled for a declaration as sought for? In the light of the findings rendered by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the judgment and that, there was no contra evidence adduced by the appellant to show otherwise and that the 1 st respondent was successful in establishing the factum of marriage between herself and late Raghunatha Rao, it will be a farcical exercise if this Court were to remand the suit O.S. No. 217 of 2016 back to the Muniff Court, Punaloor, for a fresh trial. The respondents cannot be put to an ordeal of a retrial especially when they were successful in establishing the factum of marriage. 13.1. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court on the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain the dispute regarding the validity of marriage though may be unsustainable, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the findings rendered by the trial court on the basis of the evidences adduced by both sides, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 217 of 2016 is not entitled for the declaratory relief as prayed for. That be so, the claim for declaratory relief in O.S. No. 217 of 2016 must necessarily fail. 14. As regards the relief of injunction sought for respondent herein, the concurrent decree in her favour is based on the finding that she is in exclusive possession of the property. This court sees no scope for interference since the findings are based on the appreciation of evidence and the said appreciation does not appear to be vitiated by perversity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed.