Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed; Rekha’s rights and declarati...

Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases (Matrimonial Appeals) - High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012; connected cases ( incl. 763/2012, 764/2012, 775/2012, 61/2013, 184/2013, 372/2013, 15/2013, MFA (Succession) No. 35 of 2022)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
  • THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY
Judgment Date
2023-03-06
Court Decision / Holding
The Appeals are dismissed. The High Court held that there was no valid marriage between Sivaprasad and Smt. Vanajakshi, but Sivaprasad did marry Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari, making Rekha and her children rightful successors to Sivaprasad’s estate. Consequently, decrees of injunction against Rekha’s challengers (O.Ps 632, 634 of 2005) were confirmed in favor of Rekha and her children; Sudevan’s and Rajan’s claims were rejected. The Family Court’s decrees are upheld in relation to Rekha’s rights; the judgment discusses evidentiary weight of oral testimony, posthumous declarations, and DNA testing guidance, citing Aparna Ajinkya Firodia as persuasive authority.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed; Rekha’s rights and declarations upheld; Sudevan and Rajan’s claims rejected; Family Court decrees against Sudevan/Rajan sustained in favor of Rekha and her children.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sudevan
  • Rajan

Respondents

  • Rekha @ Vijayakumari Madathara
  • Sree Hanu
  • Sreekutty

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • R. Anil Kumar
  • • A. Arsha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Varsha Bhaskar
  • • Prem Krishna

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated judgment of multiple matrimonial appeals under the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising from a common judgment dated 11.10.2012 of the Family Court, Nedumangad, in O.P. Nos. 629–638 of 2005 and related proceedings. The core dispute concerns whether Smt. Vanajakshi was lawfully married to Sri Sivaprasad and whether Sudevan was their son, as well as whether Rekha @ Vijayakumari (and her children) were lawfully married to Sivaprasad and entitled to inheritance or declaration regarding property. The Family Court’s findings, based on oral evidence and documentary Exts. A1–A29, were that Vanajakshi’s alleged marriage with Sivaprasad could not be established and that Sivaprasad did marry Rekha @ Vijayakumari, making Rekha and her children the legitimate heirs to Sivaprasad’s estate. The High Court, while acknowledging the evidentiary complexities and posthumous documents, upheld the conclusion that the Vanajakshi-Sivaprasad marriage was not proved and allowed the Rekha lineage to prevail on the property/possession aspects, while dismissing the reliefs sought by Sudevan and Rajan to declare Vanajakshi’s marriage and Sudevan’s paternity. The judgment discusses evidentiary standards, Partition/deed credibility, and the propriety of relying on posthumous declarations, reiterating DNA-test considerations in line with a recent Supreme Court stance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19(1)Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 384Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 32(5) and 32(6)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 5(i) and 11

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ipse dixit

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that there was a valid marriage between Sri Sivaprasad and Smt. Vanajakshi on 30 Edavam 1120 ME and that Sri Sivaprasad fathered Sudevan; they relied on oral testimonies (PW1, PW2, PW12) and documentary Exts. A10, A10(a), A13, A14, A21, A23, A29 to prove the marriage through customary rites and the paternity of Sudevan. They argued that documents like Ext.A14 (Vanajakshi’s affidavit) and posthumous declarations (Exts.A21, A23) support a valid union; they questioned the reliability of the bank extracts and partition deeds for post-marriage claims; and they invoked DNA testing principles as supportive, while noting that DNA tests are not always decisive (citing Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that there was no proven marriage between Sivaprasad and Vanajakshi; they relied on witness testimonies and documentary records to show lack of a valid ceremony; they contended that Sudevan’s claim to be Sivaprasad’s son is not proven beyond records showing Sivaprasad as father in unrelated documents; Rekha’s marriage to Sivaprasad and issue were established and rights to property should vest in Rekha and her children; Exts.B5 (marriage certificate) and Ext.B6–B11, along with bank records, supported their case; they highlighted inconsistencies and posthumous declarations and argued against a DNA test as controlling proof.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia2023 SCC OnLine SC 161PositiveCited to support the proposition that DNA testing is not ordinarily ordered to prove paternity, and that refusal to undergo DNA testing does not automatically negate paternity.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases (Matrimonial Appeals) - High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.P.NO.632 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD** **APPELLANTS:** - **1 SUDEVAN S/O.NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, AGED 62, UNACKAYAN VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT 'AISWARYA', KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** - **2 RAJAN, S/O.SADANANDAN, PRARAJ BHAVAN, SARKARA DESOM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695307.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT.A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 REKHA @ VIJAYAKUMARI MADATHARA, KOLLAM DIST NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA,KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, PIN : 695 307.** - **2 SREE HANU, AGED 6, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU MADATHARA DESOM KOLLAM DIST.** 2 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases - **3 SREEKUTTY, AGED 4, (MINOR) D/O.VIJAYAKUMARI, RESIDING AT** **(MINOR REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT).** **BY ADVS.** **VARSHA BHASKAR PREM KRISHNA** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.763/2012, 764/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.P.NO.631 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANT:** ## **SUDEVAN** **VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT "AISWARYA", KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI,NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT.A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 VIJAYAKUMARI KOLLAM DIST., NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA, KAIKKARA P.O., KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, PIN 695307.** - **2 SALIM, S/O.ATHIKKARI, AGED 46, VELICKAKAM VEEDU, EALAPPURAM DESOM, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O., PIN: 695 101. R1 BY ADV VARSHA BHASKAR** 4 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.P.NO.630 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANT:** **SUDEVAN** **AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, UNACKAYAM VILAKATHU VEEDU,VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT 'AISWARYA',KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI,NEMOM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT.A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENT:** **VIJAYAKUMARI D/O.THANKAMMA,THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,MADATHARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA,KAIKKARADESOM KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN695307.** **BY ADV VARSHA BHASKAR** 6 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 7 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.S.NO.114 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANTS:** - **1 SUDEVAN** - **S/O. NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, AGED 62, UNACKAYAN VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT AISWARYA, KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** - **2 RAJAN S/O. SADANANDAN, AGED 62, PRARAJ BHAVAN, SARKARA DESOM, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT.A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O. THANKAMMA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA, KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK.** 8 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases - **2 VAKKOM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED** - **542, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE.** - **3 SREE HANU AGED 10, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA DESOM, KOLAM DISTRICT (MINOR TO BE APPOITNED COURT GUARDIAN)** - **4 SREEKUTTY, AGED 9, (MINOR) RESIDING AT (MINOR TO BE REPRESENTED IST RESPONDENT THE MOTHER)** - **BY ADVS. VARSHA BHASKAR PREM KRIShna** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 9 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.P.NO.634 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANT:** **SREEDEVI, D/O. NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, AGED 54 YEARS, KALLIMOODU VEEDU, KAIKKARA DESOM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT. A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 REKHA @ VIJAYAKUMARI D/O. THANKAMMA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA, KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.** - **2 SREE HANU, AGED 6 YEARS THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA DESOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (MINOR TO BE APPOINTED COURT GUARDIAN)** 10 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases - **3 SREEKUTTY (MINOR)** - **AGED 4 YEARS,** **D/O. VIJAYAKUMARI, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA DESOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (MINOR TO BE APPOINTED COURT GUARDIAN)** - **4 BIJU,** - **S/O. MANOHARAN, CHANAVILA VEEDU, KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **R1 BY ADV VARSHA BHASKAR** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 11 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.P.NO.638 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 SUDEVAN** - **S/O.NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, UNACKAYAN VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT 'AISWARYA', KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** - **2 SREEDEVI** - **AGED 37 YEARS,** - **D/O.NARAYANAN, KADAPPURAM VEEDU, KALLUMMOODU, KAILLARA DESOM AND VILLAGE, NOW AT CHANAVILA PADINJARU VEEDU, KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE.** **BY ADV SRI.R.ANILKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 VIJAYAKUMARI** **D/O.THANKAMMA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA, KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-695306.** 12 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases - **2 BIJU S/O.MANOHARAN, CHANAVILA VEEDU, KAILLARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE-695306.** - **3 VIMALA W/O.MANOHARAN, CHANAVILA VEEDU, KAILLARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE-695306.** - **4 LEMBODHARAN S/O.VELU, CHANAVILA VEEDU, KAILLARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE-695306.** - **5 ANILKUMAR @ ASOKAN S/O.BHASKARAN, PANATHAZHA VEEDU, KAIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE-695306.** - **BY ADV VARSHA BHASKAR** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 13 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.P.NO.629 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANT:** **SREEDEVI , D/O.NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, AGED 54 YEARS** **UNACKAYAN VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT AISARYA KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT.A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENT:** **VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O.THANKAMMA** **THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA, KOLLAM DIST, NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA, KAIKKARA P.O., PIN 695 307, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.** ## **BY ADV VARSHA BHASKAR** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 14 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2012 IN O.S.NO.115 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANTS:** - **1 SUDEVAN AGED 54 YEARS,** **S/O NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, UNACKAYAN VILAKATHU VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE NOW RESDING AT AISWARYA, KARAKKAMANDAPAM MURI, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.** - **2 RAJAN,** - **S/O SADANANDAN, PRARAJ BHAVAN, SARKARA DESOM, CHIRAYINKEEZU VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS.** - **SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SMT.A.ARSHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 VIJAYAKUMARI D/O THANKAMMA, THADTHARIKATHU VEEDU, MADATHARA, KOLLAM DIST. NOW RESIDING AT CHANAVILA, KAIKKARA PO, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, PIN:695 307.** 15 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases - **2 SREE HANU AGED 14 YEARS** **JISHA VILASOM, CHIZHIYAKKODE DESOM, MADATHARA, KOLLAM (MINOR), PIN:695 307, REPRESENTED BY B.SASIDHARAN.** - **3 SREEKUTY AGED 12 YEARS** - **(MINOR REPRESENTED BY YESODA, D/O THANKAMMA), MANJU VILASOM VEEDU, CHAKKAMALA, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN:695 307.** - **4 KABEER S/O AKBAR, KAYALVARAM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, AND DESOM, PIN:695 308.** - **R1 BY ADV VARSHA BHASKAR** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.762/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MFA (SUCCESSION) NO. 35 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2020 IN I.A.NO.3306 OF 2003 IN O.P.(SUCCESSION) NO.8 OF 2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VARKALA AND THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2020 IN C.M.A.NO.137 OF 2020 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPELLANT:** **SUDEVAN AGED 74 YEARS,** **S/O NARAYANAN SIVAPRASAD, ISWARYA, KARAYKKA MANDAPAM, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV R.ANILKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS,** **D/O THANKAMMA, CHENAVILA VEEDU, KAYIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE (NOW ANJUTHENGU VILLAGE), KAYIKKARA FROM THADATHARIKATH VEEDU, MADATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695306.** **2 SREE HANU AGED 26 YEARS, D/O VIJAYAKUMARI, CHENAVILA VEEDU, KAYIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE (NOW ANJUTHENGU VILLAGE), KAYIKKARA FROM THADATHARIKATH VEEDU,** 17 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases **MADATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695306.** - **3 SREEKUTTY, AGED 24 YEARS,** **D/O VIJAYAKUMARI, CHENAVILA VEEDU, KAYIKKARA DESOM, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE (NOW ANJUTHENGU VILLAGE), KAYIKKARA FROM THADATHARIKATH VEEDU, MADATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695306.** - **4 RAJAN (EXPIRED) AGED 84 YEARS** - **S/O SADANANDAN, PRARAJ BHAVAN, SARKARA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695306.** - **5* SANTHA, PRAJA BHAVAN, SHARKARA, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVAN.ANTHAPURAM – 695 304.** - **6* PRASANNA, D/O RAJAN, PRAJA BHAVAN, SHARKARA, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVAN.ANTHAPURAM-695 304.** - ***ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2022.** **THIS MFA (SUCCESSION) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 13.02.2023, THE COURT ON 06.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 18 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.G. Ajithkumar, J. These Mat.Appeals under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arose on the common judgement dated 11.10.2012, as per which the Family Court, Nedumangad disposed of O.S.Nos.114 of 2005 and 115 of 2005 and O.P.Nos.629 of 2005, 630 of 2005, 631 of 2005, 632 of 2005, 634 of 2005 and 638 of 2005. M.F.A.No.35 of 2022 was filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, challenging the order of the Munsiff’s Court, Varakala in I.A.No.3306 of 2003 in O.P.(Succession) No.8 of 1998. The dispute involved are common. Hence all these matters are considered together and disposed of by this common judgement. 2. Smt.Vanajakshi along with Sri.Sudevan filed O.S.No.114 of 2005 seeking a decree of declaration that Smt.Vanajakshi is the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad, S/o Narayanan and a consequential mandatory injunction. Smt.Vanajakshi died and therefore Sri.Rajan was impleaded 19 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases before the Family Court as additional petitioner No.3. Sri.Rajan was stated to be the son of Smt.Vanajakshi born in her first marriage with one Sri.Sadanandan. Cause of action for such a suit arose since the 1st respondent Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad, who died on 30.01.1998, obtained a succession certificate from the Munsiff’s Court, Varkala in O.P. (Succ) No.8 of 1998 entitling her and her two children, namely, Sree Hanu, the 3rd respondent and Sreekutty, the 4th respondent, to receive the debts and securities in the name of Sri.Sivaprasad due from the 2nd respondent-Bank. The Munsiff’s Court held that Smt.Rekha was the legally wedded wife and Sree Hanu and Sreekutty were the children of late Sivaprasad, which Smt. Vanajakshi and Sri. Sudevan dispute. 3. The claim of Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sudevan are that Sri.Sivaprasad married Smt.Vanajakshi on 30th Edavam 1920 (M.E.) and in that relationship Sri.Sudevan was born on 13.05.1946. Smt.Vanajakshi was married to one Sadanandan earlier and in that relationship Sri.Rajan was born. After the 20 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases demise of Sri.Sadanandan, she was married to Sri.Sivaprasad. Sri.Sivaprasad did not marry Smt.Rekha as she claimed. During the late years of his life, Sri.Sivaprasad shifted his residence to the house of her sister Smt.Sulekha. Since both of them as well as Smt.Vanajakshi were aged, the 1st respondent Smt.Rekha was engaged as a maidservant. Other than that, there was no relationship between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Rekha. Sri.Sivaprasad died in 1998 at the age of 83 years and therefore the claim that he married Smt.Rekha on 23.01.1993 is absolutely false. On the basis of those pleadings, the petitioners sought a decree of declaration and injunction in O.S.No.114 of 2005. 4. Sri.Sudevan along with Sri.Rajan filed O.S.No.115 of 2015 setting forth pleadings similar to that in O.S.No.114 of 2005 claiming a decree of declaration that Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari is not the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad and Sree Hanu and Sreekutty are not the children of Sri.Sivaprasad. The case set forth by Smt.Rekha and her children Sree Hanu and Sreekutty is as follows:- 21 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases Smt.Rekha was married to Sri.Sivaprasad on 23.01.1993. Their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites at Sarkara Devi Temple, Varkala. Sree Hanu and Sreekutty are the children born in that wedlock. In the marriage register, age of Sri.Sivaprasad was shown less in order to overcome the objection raised by her parents. They along with Sri.Sivaprasad were residing at Valiyavila House at Vakkom. The claim of Smt.Vanajakshi that she is the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad and Sri.Sudevan is their son, are incorrect. They also contended that the partition deed was executed between Smt.Vanajakshi, Sri.Sudevan and Smt.Sulekha without any right or authority. Thus they resisted the reliefs claimed in both O.S.Nos.114 of 2005 and 115 of 2005. 5. The Original Petitions were filed relating to property rights. Smt.Vanajakshi, Sri.Sudevan and Smt.Sulekha executed documents alienating the property of Sri.Sivaprasad, claiming that they succeeded him. Similarly, Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari alienated property of Sri.Sivaprasad claiming that she succeeded him. The Original Petitions were relating 22 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases to disputes with respect to such documents and respective claims to the property left by Sri.Sivaprasad. 6. O.P.(Succession) No.8 of 1998 was filed by Smt.Rekha and her two children seeking a succession certificate enabling them to receive deposits and gold ornaments kept in the bank locker in the name of Sri.Sivaprasad. Nobody was arrayed as respondent, but following paper publication Sri.Sudevan entered appearance. After recording evidence, on both sides, the Munsiff, Varkala issued succession certificate in favour of Smt.Rekha and her two children entitling them to receive the money and gold ornaments from the bank, a copy of the order by which the certificate was issued is Ext.A4. Sri.Sudevan filed I.A.No.3306 of 2003 in O.P.(Succession) No.8 of 1998 invoking the provisions of Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking to revoke the succession certificate. The Munsiff after considering the rival contentions dismissed I.A.No.3306 of 2003. Sri.Sudevan had filed an appeal before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the said order. But 23 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases that appeal, C.M.A.No.137 of 2020, was dismissed as per the order dated 03.08.2020 as not maintainable. 7. Thereafter, Sri.Sudevan had filed M.F.A.No.35 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act challenging the said order. For the convenience of reference and understanding the details of the Original Suits/Original Petitions/I.A. and the corresponding appeals are tabulated below: |O.S.No.114<br>of 2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.775 of<br>2012|Smt.Vanajakshi, Sri.Sudevan and Sri.Rajan are<br>the plaintiffs. They seek a decree of declaration<br>that Smt.Vanajakshi is the legally wedded wife of<br>Sri.Sivaprasad. and Sri.Sudevan is their son.| |---|---|---| |O.S.No.115<br>of 2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.372 of<br>2013|The suit was filed by Sri.Sudevan and Sri.Rajan<br>for a declaration that Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari<br>is not the wife of Sri.Sivaprasad and Sree Hanu<br>and Sreekutty are not their children.| |O.P.No.629 of<br>2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.184 of<br>2013|O.P. was filed by Smt.Sreedevi, who purchased the<br>property from Sri.Sudevan seeking a permanent<br>prohibitory injunction against Smt.Rekha @<br>Vijayakumari. Sri.Sudevan claimed to have inherited<br>that property from Sri.Sivaprasad.| |O.P.No.630 of<br>2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.764 of<br>2012|O.P. filed by Smt.Sulekha, claiming that property<br>of Sri.Sivaprasad was devolved upon her also. She<br>seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against<br>Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari.| |O.P.No.631 of<br>2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.763 of<br>2012|O.P. filed by Sri.Sudevan against Smt.Rekha @<br>Vijayakumari and Sri.Salim for permanent<br>prohibitory injunction with respect to a property<br>Sri.Sudevan claimed to have obtained from| 24 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases |||Sri.Sivaprasad.| |---|---|---| |O.P.No.632 of<br>2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.762 of<br>2012|O.P. filed by Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari, Sree<br>Hanu and Sreekutty against Sri.Sudevan,<br>Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Rajan seeking a<br>permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain them<br>from creating any document in relation to the<br>properties left by Sri.Sivaprasad.| |O.P.No.634 of<br>2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.15 of<br>2013|Filed by Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari and two<br>children along with Sri.Biju seeking a decree of<br>permanent prohibitory injunction.| |O.P.No.638 of<br>2005|Mat.Appeal<br>No.61 of<br>2013|Filed by Smt.Sulekha and Smt.Sreedevi.<br>Smt.Sulekha claimed right to plaint A-Schedule<br>property obtained as per partition deed, Ext.A21.<br>Smt.Sreedevi claimed to have purchased plaint B-<br>Schedule property from Sri.Sudevan, which he<br>claimed to have inherited from Sri.Sivaprasad.<br>They seek an injunction restraining Smt.Rekha @<br>Vijayakumari and 4 others, who allegedly obtained<br>right from Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari as per<br>document No.996/2001. A declaration that the<br>said document is a nullity is also sought.| |I.A.No.3306<br>of 2003 in<br>O.P.(Succe-<br>ssion) No.8 of<br>1998|M.F.A.No. 35<br>of 2022|Filed by Sri.Sudevan to revoke succession<br>certificate issued in O.P.(Suc) No.8 of 1998 by the<br>Munsiff's Court, Varkala enabling Smt.Rekha @<br>Vijayakumari and children to receive deposits and<br>gold from the bank, belonging to Sri.Sivaprsad.| 8. All these appeals were admitted. Since there was no representation for the respondents initially, this Court called for a report from the Chairman, Taluk Legal Services Committee, Attingal about the interest of Smt. Rekha @Vijayakumari to pursue the matter. After getting a report 25 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases that she did not turn out, a legal-aid counsel was appointed. However, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Advocate Sri.K.Premkrishna Nair represented the respondents. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The core issue is whether Smt.Vanajakshi is the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad and Sri.Sudevan is a child born in that wedlock. Equally important is the question whether Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari was legally wedded by Sri.Sivaprasad and in that relationship two children were begotten. Once these questions are answered, the issues involved in all the cases will get answered. 11. The appellants rely on the oral evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW12 and also Exts.A1, A7, A8, A10, A10(a), A11, A13, A14 to A17 to prove that Smt.Vanajakshi was the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad and Sri.Sudevan was born in that wedlock. Sri.Sudevan is PW1. PW2 claims to be the sister 26 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases of Sri.Sivaprasad. PW12 is a person who claims to have witnessed the marriage of Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi. Pointing out the contents of Exts.A10 and A10(a), which are voters list and electoral card, Ext.A13, a certificate of service, all relating to Sri.Sudevan, where the name of his father was mentioned as Sivaprasad, the learned counsel would submit that the oral testimony of PWs.2 and 12 get confirmation from those documents. 12. The Family Court, Nedumangad, considered the said evidence in detail and held that the same was insufficient to prove Smt.Vanajakshi was legally married by Sri.Sivaprasad. The oral testimony of PW1 cannot have any direct bearing regarding the proof of marriage ceremony. PWs.2 and 12 deposed that Sri.Sivaprasad married Smt.Vanajakshi at her residence following the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Quite curiously, there is absolutely no document, which mentions the marital relationship between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad. Of course a partition deed was executed between Smt.Vanajakshi, Sri.Sudevan and 27 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases Smt.Sulekha after the death of Sri.Sivaprasad stating that his property devolved upon Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sudevan. That is only a self-serving document executed after the dispute arose, and cannot have any evidentiary value insofar as the marital relationship between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad is concerned. Ext.A15 is the marriage certificate relating to the marriage of Sri.Sudevan. In that, his father’s name is stated as Neelakandan. The appellants would contend that such a certificate was obtained at the instance of PW6 Asokan by submitting false details before the Temple authorities. In that regard, oral testimony of PW7 was also relied on. Another document relied on by the appellants to prove the marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi is Ext.A14, an affidavit filed by Smt.Vanajakshi asserting that she was married to Sri.Sivaprasad and Sri.Sudevan was their son. Ext.A14 is a self-declaration containing untested version of a party to the litigation. Therefore, the assertion in Ext.A14 cannot be given any importance. 28 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases 13. Marriage between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad was said to have been solemnised on 30th Edavom 1120 (M.E.). PW2 claims that she is the sister of Sri.Sivaprasad, but from the description in the cause title, it is seen that Sri.Sivaprasad is son of Narayanan; whereas Smt.Sulekha is daughter of Raman. The oral testimony of PW2 as well as PW12 have inherent infirmities. When the version is with respect to an incident that happened around 55 years back, the coherence in the oral testimony may be less. But when evidence is with respect to the solemnization of a customary marriage, there must be a reasonably cogent version, if to be accepted. If there exists a document to support, that oral version could be said to be reliable. As pointed out above, there is absolutely no document which mentions the marital relationship between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad other than posthumous documents. It is true that in Exts.A10, A10(a), A21, A23 and A29, name of the father of Sri.Sudevan is mentioned as Sivaprasad. All the same, name of the father of Sudevan is stated as 29 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases Sri.Neelakandan in Ext.A15, his marriage register issued from Kolathukara Kshetra Samajam, Kulathur. Of course, Exts.A16 and A17 along with the oral testimony of PWs.6 and 7 are highlighted by the appellants to contend that father’s name was mistakenly stated as Neelakandan in Ext.P15. Ext. B19 is a certified extract of the register relating to school admission of PW1, Sri Sudevan. Sri.Neelakandan is shown as the father of Sri Sudevan in it. Even if Ext. P15 is discarded, the entry in Ext. B19, which is the oldest and most reliable document comparing to rest of the aforesaid documents, belies the case of the appellants. Therefore, even by accepting Exts.A10, A10(a) and A14, where name of Sri.Sivaprasad is mentioned as the father of Sri.Sudevan, that is insufficient to prove the legal marriage of Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad, particularly when there is no document reciting such a relationship. 14. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that Exts.A21, 23 and 29 contain declarations regarding the marital relationship 30 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi and that being relevant under Section 32(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, will prove existence of a valid marriage. Those documents were executed after the death of Sri. Sivaprasad, by that time the dispute involved here, had already erupted. Parties to this lis had executed Exts.A21 and A23. Although, subsequently one of the executants died, she being a party to the litigation, no sanctity as contemplated under Section 32(5) or (6) of the Evidence Act can be attached to those documents. 15. When these cases went to trial, Smt.Vanajakshi was no more. But when O.P.(Succession) No.8 of 1998 was enquired into before Munsiff, Varkala, Smt.Vanajakshi was very much available. Sri.Sudevan deposed before the Munsiff claiming that Smt.Vanajakshi was the legally wedded wife of Sri.Sivaprasad. Of course, Smt.Vanajakshi was not a party to O.P.(Succession) No.8 of 1998. But when her marital relationship was at stake, and Sri.Sudevan was a party to it and gave evidence as RW1, it was only appropriate for 31 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases Smt.Vanajakshi to appear and depose before the Court regarding her marriage with Sri.Sivaprasad. But she did not turn up. Thereby, the possible evidence regarding that fact was shutout by appellants themselves. As pointed out above the evidence adduced by the appellants is insufficient to prove that Smt.Vanajakshi was wedded by Sri.Sivaprasad by undergoing the rites and ceremonies of a customary marriage. In the said circumstances, the finding entered into by the Family Court, Nedumangad that the appellants failed to prove the marriage between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad cannot be said to be incorrect. 16. In order to prove the marriage of Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari with Sri.Sivaprasad, apart from the oral testimony tendered by her as DW1, the oral testimonies of DWs.3, 4 and 5 and Exts.B5, B7 to B11 have essentially been relied on by the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would point out the improbability of Sri.Sivaprasad contracting a marriage at the age of 76 years. 17. Ext.A1 is relied on by the appellants to prove that 32 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases in 1110 M.E. when that partition deed was executed, Sri.Sivaprasad had only 19 years of age. 1110 M.E. corresponds to 1935 A.D. If so, at the time of the alleged marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Rekha in 1993, he would have been 76 years of age. Further, the age of Smt.Rekha, at that time would not be more than 23 years. In her marriage certificate, Ext.A12 itself the age was shown as 28. Whereas, going by Ext.A2, extract of her school admission register, her age would be still less. Those aspects are highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to urge that Sri.Sivaprasad did not marry Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari. 18. DW1 deposed regarding the solemnization of her marriage with Sri.Sivaprasad at Sarkara Devi Temple, Varkala. Of course, it is an ipse dixit. But oral testimonies of DWs.3 and 4, who claim to have attended the marriage, certainly have importance. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that one of the two witnesses in Ext.B5 marriage certificate is a Muslim and therefore it cannot 33 ## Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases be given any credence. The contention cannot be accepted because Ext.B5 is a certificate evidencing marriage issued by Temple authorities, for which there are no statutory prescriptions as to the format or requirements. Exts.B8 and B9 are the birth certificates of Sree Hanu and Sreekutty, in which Sri.Sivaprasad is shown as the father. In the voters’ list and identity card of DW1, Sri.Sivaprasad is shown as the husband. Ext.B5 is a document came into existence prior to the death of Sri.Sivaprasad and the present disputes cropped up. 19. DW6 is an official from the 2nd respondent-bank in O.S.No.115 of 2005. He is an independent witness. He deposed that Smt.Rekha used to transact the account of Sri.Sivaprasad as permitted by him and the key of his locker in the bank was with her. That evidence certainly would probabilse the case of the Smt.Rekha that she and Sri.Sivaprasad were living as wife and husband. 20. In the context of the said evidence, oral testimony of PW2, Smt.Sulekha has relevance. She deposed that 34 ## Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases Smt.Rekha had been residing along with her and Sri.Sivaprasad at Paravaliyavilakom. Although she gave statement in an earlier case that during that period Smt.Rekha got impregnated, she denied that version during cross-examination in these cases. The admission of the appellants that Smt.Rekha was residing in the house of Sri.Sivaprasad, though with a caveat that she was brought only as a maidservant, also assumes importance. The cumulative effect of the said evidence is certainly that there was solemnization of marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari. 21. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that if at all there was a marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari, it is void in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 5 deals with conditions for a Hindu marriage. A Hindu marriage can be validly solemnised between two Hindus, if the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. One of the conditions 35 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases prescribed is that neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. If such a condition is not fulfilled the marriage becomes void in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We found above that there was no valid marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi. As such, it cannot be said that the marriage of Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari falls within the mischief of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In this regard, the respondents had a contention that Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad could not marry validly since her first husband Sri.Sadanandan was alive. The claim of the appellants is that Smt.Vanajakshi was married by Sri.Sivaprasad on 30[th] Edavom 1920 (M.E.). and Sri.Sudevan was born on 13.05.1946. If so, that marriage was before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore, the provisions of Sections 5(i) and 11 of the said Act would not have application. That question has only academic importance since the marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi is not proved. 36 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases 22. The appellants would contend that refusal of Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari to subject to a D.N.A.test demolishes her claim of marriage with Sri.Sivaprasad and paternity of her children. The contention of the appellants is that when Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari claimed maintenance from Sri.Sivaprasad, question of paternity of the children Sree Hanu and Sreekutty had arisen, and therefore the Vanitha Commission directed her to undergo a D.N.A.test, but she refused. First of all, there is no reliable evidence to show that such a D.N.A.test was ordered and it was refused by Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari. 23. The Apex Court in **Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia [2023 SCC OnLine SC 161] : [2023 (2)KLT 101]** held that except in exceptional circumstances, D.N.A. test shall not be ordered to confirm the paternity of a child. It was further held that refusal by the mother to undergo a D.N.A. test does not entail an adverse inference with respect to the paternity of the child. Therefore, the said contention is untenable. 37 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases 24. There was age difference between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari. She had explained that the age of Sri.Sivaprasad was stated less in the marriage register in order to overcome the resistance from the part of her parents. When the evidence on record proves that a valid marriage was solemnised, the difference of age and related inconsistency, is insufficient to discard the said evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents succeeded in establishing the valid marriage between Smt.Rekha and Sri.Sivaprasad. 25. In the light of the finding we have entered into hereinbefore that there was no valid marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi; whereas, Sri.Sivaprasad had married Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari through a customary marriage and it is valid, decrees of declaration as claimed in O.S.No.114 of 2005 and O.S.No.115 of 2005 are not liable to be granted. The Family Court rightly had dismissed the said suits. 26. The reliefs in O.P.Nos.629, 630, 631, 632, 634 and 38 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases 638 of 2005 depend the existence or not of a valid marriage between Sri.Sivaprasad and Smt.Vanajakshi. Only if there existed such a marriage, and Sri.Sudevan is proved to be the son of Sri.Sivaprasad, they become the heirs of Sri.Sivaprasad and succeeded him so as to claim right to the properties left by him and involved in these original petitions. Since we found above that Smt.Vanajakshi was not married by Sri.Sivaprasad and Sri.Sudevan was not a child born in that wedlock, their claim of title to the property left by Sri.Sivaprasad is untenable. For that reason, the persons who purchased the property from them cannot have a claim to such properties. Similarly the claim of Smt.Sulekha, which is only on the basis of Ext.A21 partition deed, also is unsustainable in law. On the other hand, Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari and her children Sree Hanu and Sreekutty succeeded Sri.Sivaprasad and his property devolved upon them. Therefore, the decrees of injunction claimed by Smt.Rekha @ Vijayakumari in O.P.Nos.632 and 634 of 2005 are liable to be granted. Hence, the decrees passed by the Family Court in the said cases are not liable to be interfered with. 39 Mat.Appeal No.762 of 2012 & connected cases 27. Very contention of Sri.Sudevan in I.A.No.3306 of 2003 in O.P.(Succession) No.8 of 1998 was that Smt.Rekha and her children by suppressing material facts, namely, the marriage between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad and that Sri.Sudevan was their son, obtained the succession certificate. Non-joinder of Smt.Vanajakshi as a party to O.P. (Succession) No.8 of 1998 also has been highlighted as a reason for revoking the succession certificate issued as per Ext.A4. We held above that the appellant failed to prove valid marriage between Smt.Vanajakshi and Sri.Sivaprasad and also that Sri.Sudevan is the son of Sri.Sivaprasad. In view of that finding the contentions of the appellants in I.A.No.3306 of 2003 are untenable. Therefore, M.F.A.No.35 of 2022 deserves only to be dismissed. Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr