IN THE

HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the matter of

SPS Balasubramanyam.................................................................................APPELLANT

Vs.

Suruyattan and Ors. ..................................................................................RESPONDENT

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SPS Balasubramanyam

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

Anand Singh

Semester-II, Section-A,

Roll No.-31
 Table of Contents

Table Of Abbreviations And Symbols........................................................................................i

Table Of Authorities...................................................................................................................ii

Statement Of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................iii

Statement Of Facts.....................................................................................................................iv

Issues Raised..............................................................................................................................vi

Summary Of Arguments...........................................................................................................vii

Arguments Advanced..................................................................................................................1

Prayer for Relief..........................................................................................................................6

 Table Of Abbreviations And Symbols

S. No. ABBREVIATION DEFINITION

1. & And

2. AIR All India Reporter

3. Art. Article

4. Ed. Edition

5. Hon’ble Honourable

6. Ors. Others

7. SC Supreme Court

8. SCC Supreme Court Cases

9. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

10. P.W. Prosecution Witness

11. D.W. Defense Witness

12. S. Section

13. UOI The Union of India

15. v. Versus

16. Vol. Volume

17. HC High Court

i
 Table of Authorities

LIST OF CASES -

1. D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal

2. Tulsa vs. Durghatiya
3.  Bharatha Matha vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan
4. Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajni Kant
5. Dhannulal vs. Ganeshram
6. Revanasiddappa vs..  Mallikarjun 

STATUTES

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

DATABASE

1. MANUPATRA
2. SCC ONLINE

ii
 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Hon’ble Delhi high court is empowered to hear this case by the virtue of Section 109 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High
Court judge. Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows-

Subject to the provisions in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution and such rules as may, from
time to time, be made by the Supreme Court regarding appeals from the Courts of India, and to the
provisions hereinafter contained, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment,
decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court, if the High Court certifies

(i) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and

(ii) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme
Court.

iii
 Statement of Facts

1. A man named Manthi alias Thambiran Padayachi had three sons one of whom called
Chinathambi. The admitted wife of the Chinathambi was called Pavayee, who is
hereafter referred as Pavayee No. 1.
2. Chinathambi started living with another woman having the same name who is hereafter
referred as Pavayee No. 2 from whom he had two sons and one daughter. Ramaswamy
is one of the sons.
3. Manthi executed a will bequeathing his properties to his children and grandchildren.
Chinathambi filed a suit against his brothers claiming a share in the properties
bequeathed under the will and also in respect of other family properties.
4. The suit was terminated by a compromise between Chinathambi and his brothers. He
was given a share in the suit property. In respect of that share of property, he executed a
settlement deed by which he gave the property to his wife and children in which
Ramaswamy got 1/3rd of the property.
5. Ramaswamy sold a share of his property to the appellant, SPS Balasubramanyam but
the defendants resisted the suit contending that Ramaswamy was not the legitimate son
of Chinathambi and in any event Chinathambi could not get absolute right in respect of
the share of property given to him.
6. The trail Court held that there was no evidence about the marriage of Chinathambi with
Pavayee No. 2. However the appellate Court held to the contrary. It held that since
Chinathambi and Pavayee No. 2 continuously lived under the same roof and cohabited
for a number of years the law would raise presumption that they lived as husband and
wife. There was no other evidence to destroy the presumption. So stating the plaintiff’s
suit was decreed.
7. The defendant filed an appeal against the decision of appellate Court in the High Court.
The High Court took a different view and held that presumption available in favour of
Pavayee No. 2 by her continuous living with Chinathambi has been destroyed by other
circumstances in the case.
8. Aggrived by the decision of Hon’ble High Court this appeal has been preferred.

iv
 Issues Raised

1. Whether Ramaswamy is the legitimate child of the Chinathambi?

2. Whether the property bequeathed by Manthi in favour of his sons and grandsons but
excluding Ramaswamy being ancestral and coparcenary property could any title vest in
him under deed of settlement executed by his father?

v
 Summary of Arguments

1. Ramaswamy is the legitimate child of the Chinathambi.

If a man and woman are not legally wedded but are living under the same roof in the same
household for a number of years it would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage”
falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Chinathambi and Pavayee No. 2 were living together
since 1920. The relationship between them constituted a “relationship in the nature of marriage”
within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which takes in every relationship by a man with
a woman, sharing household, irrespective of the fact whether the other individual is a married
person or not.

2. Ramaswamy have a valid title under the deed of settlement executed by his father.

The deed of settlement executed by Chinathambi it having been found that he got his share by way
of partition decree the ancestral and coparcenary nature came to an end and Chinathambi became
its exclusive owner and thus he can execute a deed of settlement in favour of his wife and children.
Since Ramaswamy derived his title from settlement deed it is valid and he could convey his interest
in favour of the appellant.

1
 Arguments Advanced

1. Ramaswamy is the legitimate child of the Chinathambi.

1. It is humbly submitted that if two persons are living together it will amount to
“relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic
relationship” Under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.
2. According to Section 2(f)1 of DV Act “domestic relationship” means a relationship
between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared
household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in
the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
3. In D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal 2, Supreme Court said that a relationship like
marriage under the 2005 Act must consent to some basic criteria. It provides that the
couple must be of legal age to marry or should be qualified to enter into a legal marriage.
It was also stated that the couple must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out
to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. Every kind of live-in
relationships should not be covered under the Act of 2005. Simply spending a week
together or a one night stand would not make it a household relationship
4. Chinathambi and Pavayee No. 2 were living together since 1920. The relationship between
them constituted a “relationship in the nature of marriage” within the meaning of Section
2(f) of the DV Act, which takes in every relationship by a man with a woman, sharing
household, irrespective of the fact whether the other person is a married person or not.
Chinathambi and Pavayee No. 2 have been together in a relationship since 1920 and have
two sons and one daughter as children shows that there was a very intimate relationship
between them comparative to that of marriage.
5. In Tulsa vs. Durghatiya3, the Supreme Court held that a child born out of such relationship
will no longer be considered as an illegitimate child. The important precondition for the
same should be that the parents must have lived under one roof and cohabited for a
significantly long time for the society to recognize them as husband and wife and it should
1
1. wcd.nic.in (2020). [online] Available at: https://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/wdvact.pdf [Accessed 5 July, 2020].
2
2. D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.
3
3. Tulsa vs. Durghatiya, AIR 2008 SC 1193.
2
 not be a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship
6. In another case Bharatha Matha vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan4, the Supreme Court held that a
child born out of a live-in relationship may be allowed to inherit the property of the parents
(if any) and therefore be given legitimacy in the eyes of law. 
7. According to Section 114(i)5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the court may presume the
existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to common
course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation
to the facts of the particular case. Therefore where the partners lived together for long spell
as husband and wife there would be a presumption of marriage.
8. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajni Kant6, the Supreme Court held that, the live-in
relationship if continued for long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out”
relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties. By this
approach of the Court it can be clearly inferred that the Court is in favour of treating long-
term living relationships as marriage rather than giving making it a new concept like live-
in relationship.
9. In the landmark judgment of Dhannulal vs. Ganeshram7 in 2015 the Supreme Court
decided out that couples living in live-in relationship will be presumed legally married.
The Bench also added that the woman in the relationship would be eligible to inherit the
property after the death of her partner.

4
4. Bharat Matha vs. R. Vijya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483.
5
5. Indiacode.in (2020). [online] Available at:
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/6819/1/indian_evidence_act_1872.pdf.
6
. Madan Mohan Singh vs. Rajni Kant, AIR 2010 SC 2933.
7
7. Dhannulal vs. Ganeshram, (2015) 12 SCC 301.
3
 2. Ramaswamy have a valid title in the property given to him under the deed of settlement
executed by his father.

1. The property which is inherited by a Hindu from his great grand father, which then passes
undivided down the next three generations up to the present generation of great grand
son/daughter. Once a division of the property takes place, the share or portion which each
coparcener gets after the division becomes his or her self acquired property.
2. Chinathambi had filed a suit against his brothers for the properties bequeathed by his
father to his sons and grandsons under the will as joint family property and also in respect
of other family properties.
3. The suit was terminated by a compromise between Chinathambi and his brothers and a
partition has been done by which he got a share in the suit property and hence the
coparcenary and ancestral nature of the property came to an end.
4. The Section 16(3)8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that the illegitimate child will
not be able to inherit any other property of any person but only the property of his parents.
Hence he can inherit the property of his parents.
5. According to Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Nothing contained in sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage
which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any
rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for
the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring
any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
6.  In the landmark judgment of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun9 Supreme Court held that
irrespective of the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such relationship
has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. It is as plain and clear as
sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the
rights and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of
the Section 16(3) of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

8
8.www.delhicourt.nic.in. (2020). [online] Available at:
http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/library/acts_bills_rules_regulations/The%20hindu%20marriage%20Act,%201955.pdf
9
9. Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.
4
 Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, in the light of facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities

cited, the appellant humbly prays before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that:

1. That the appeal instituted be allowed.

2. That the decree passed in the previous judgment of Hon’ble High Court be cancelled.

The court may also please to pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in the
light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

10th July, 2020 COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

DELHI ANAND SINGH