New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a child born to a couple who lived together can’t be denied shares in ancestral properties.
The son born to a couple who lived together cannot be denied the shares in the ancestral properties.
The apex court set aside a verdict of Kerala High Court, observing that the “law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage” if a man and woman cohabited for a long period and their son cannot be denied the shares in the ancestral properties, India Today reported.
“It is well settled that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act,” a bench of justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the 2009 judgement of Kerala HC which set aside the trial court order granting a share in ancestral properties to heirs of a man who was born in a long relationship between a man and woman.
The top court took exception to the delay in initiating the final decree proceedings by the trial court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in deciding partition lawsuits. All courts across the country should start the process of passing the final decree just after the initial ones to avoid delay in the justice delivery, in a partition suit.
The Supreme Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of its judgement to Registrar Generals of all high courts who, in turn, are directed to circulate the directions on immediate drawing up of final decrees after passing the preliminary ones in partition cases to avoid delay.
