Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on Tuesday allowed a second appeal and restored the trial court’s dismissal of a partition and succession claim over agricultural land, after finding that the claimants had not established a legally valid marital link to the deceased owner. The dispute centred on whether the woman through whom the claimants sought inheritance had entered a customary “Chudi” marriage with the owner, which was opposed by his daughter from the first marriage. The Bench held that a second marriage performed on the basis of custom while a prior marriage subsists is void under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, unless the party relying on custom specifically pleads and strictly proves that the custom permits such remarriage.

The dispute concerned succession to agricultural land measuring 2.47 hectares situated in a village in Chhattisgarh. The original owner of the land died leaving behind a daughter from his first wife. After the death of his first wife, he allegedly entered into a customary “Chudi” marriage with a woman who already had a prior subsisting marriage. The plaintiffs, claiming to be daughters of the woman from this alleged customary marriage, asserted succession rights to the property after the deaths of both the landowner and the woman.

Also Read: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Validity Of S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Mandating Prior Sanction For Investigation; Matter Referred To Larger Bench

The defendant, the daughter from the first marriage, objected to their claim, contending that no valid marriage existed between the landowner and the plaintiffs’ mother and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to inherit the property. The plaintiffs relied on revenue records, oral testimony, and assertions of customary marriage practices to support their claim.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit after finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a valid marriage. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding, holding the customary marriage valid and granting equal succession rights. The matter reached the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, raising the question of legality of the alleged customary marriage.

The High Court examined whether the finding of the First Appellate Court on the validity of the alleged marriage was sustainable. The Court observed that “ordinarily, a finding of fact recorded by a First Appellate Court is considered final and binding,” but interference is permissible where such findings are based on misreading of evidence or incorrect legal principles.

On scrutiny of the evidence, the Court recorded that “the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ case is seriously undermined” by the admission of the first plaintiff that the prior husband of her mother was alive at the time of the alleged customary marriage. The Court noted that “the plaintiffs have failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to establish that the first marriage had been legally or customarily dissolved.”

Referring to the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court stated that “under Sections 5(i) and 11, a marriage contracted during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage is void ab initio.” It further observed that “even where a subsequent marriage is claimed on the basis of custom, the burden lies heavily on the party asserting such custom to plead and strictly prove it.”

The Court rejected reliance on cohabitation and revenue entries, observing that “mere assertion of a ‘Chudi’ marriage or evidence of cohabitation cannot convert a marriage which is otherwise void under law into a valid one.” It also recorded that “revenue records, being fiscal in nature, cannot confer title or override substantive provisions of Hindu law governing marriage and succession.”

The High Court concluded that the First Appellate Court “overlooked crucial admissions and material contradictions” and that its finding on the validity of the marriage was “based on conjecture and surmise, contrary to the evidence on record.”

Also Read: Court Premises Are Dignified & Inviolable Places, Not Venues For Protests: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court directed that “the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balod, in Civil Appeal No. 54-A/2002 are hereby set aside.  The judgment and decree dated 13.09.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Balod, in Civil Suit No. 40-A/1988 is hereby affirmed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Virendra Soni along with Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocates; Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate

Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:1817
Case Number: SA No. 116 of 2005
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru