Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XX Rule 18 — Partition Suit — Preliminary Decree — Final Decree — No Separate Final Decree Petition — Duty of Court — Suo Motu Proceedings

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XX Rule 18 — Partition Suit — Preliminary Decree — Final Decree — No Separate Final Decree Petition — Duty of Court — Suo Motu Proceedings

Passing of a preliminary decree in a partition suit does not dispose of the suit. There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings and no requirement for filing a separate final decree petition. The Trial Court is duty-bound to proceed suo motu for drawing up the final decree immediately after passing the preliminary decree. Adjournment of the suit sine die with liberty to file a separate final decree application is impermissible. The suit comes to an end only upon drawing of the final decree. (Paras 29–34)

Hindu Law — Mitakshara Coparcenary — Presumption of Marriage — Long Cohabitation — Legitimacy of Children — Evidence Act, 1872, s. 114

Where a man and a woman have lived together for a long period as husband and wife, a presumption of a valid marriage arises under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and against bastardy. The presumption is rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to displace it. (Paras 15–20, 27)

Hindu Law — Coparcenary Property — Right to Partition — Son born from long cohabitation

Once long cohabitation between parents is established, and documentary and oral evidence consistently describe the parties as husband and wife, the child born from such relationship cannot be treated as illegitimate for the purpose of inheritance under Mitakshara law. Denial of share on the ground of illegitimacy, without rebuttal of presumption of marriage, is unsustainable. (Paras 14–28)

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — New plea at appellate stage

A plea regarding illegitimacy of a child, not pleaded before the Trial Court and raised for the first time in appeal, cannot be entertained, particularly when it requires factual adjudication. (Paras 6–9)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XX Rule 18 — Preliminary decree and final decree — Delay deprecated

Passing of a preliminary decree does not dispose of a partition suit. There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings. Trial Courts must proceed suo motu for drawing up the final decree after passing the preliminary decree and should not adjourn suits sine die. Separate final decree proceedings are unnecessary. (Paras 29–34)

Precedents Relied On:
Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy, AIR 1927 PC 185;
Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135;
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527;
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC 460;
Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520;
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755;
Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009) 9 SCC 689.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

Final Decree Proceedings — No Separate Petition Necessary — Suo Motu Duty of Court

Legal Position

In a suit for partition governed by Order XX Rule 18 CPC, once a preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties is passed, the suit does not stand disposed of. The Court retains seisin of the matter until a final decree is drawn.

There is no requirement in law that a party must file a separate final decree petition for commencement of final decree proceedings.

Duty of the Trial Court

The Trial Court is duty-bound to proceed suo motu for drawing up the final decree immediately after passing the preliminary decree. The Court must:

1. List the suit for steps under Order XX Rule 18 CPC;

2. Issue necessary directions for:

   • Appointment of Commissioner, if required;

   • Division by metes and bounds;

   • All consequential inquiries;

3. Proceed to draw the final decree within the same suit, without requiring initiation of any independent proceeding.

Adjournment sine die impermissible

Adjournment of a partition suit sine die after passing a preliminary decree, with liberty to file a separate final decree application, is procedurally unsustainable and defeats the object of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Authoritative Declaration by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has categorically held that:

• There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings;

• Either party or even the Court itself can move the process;

• The practice of insisting on a separate final decree proceeding is outdated and unsuited to modern civil justice;

• The Court must ensure a continuous and seamless process from declaration of rights to delivery of actual relief.

Binding Direction

Trial Courts are mandated to:

“List the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 CPC suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings.”

1. The suit property belonged to Kattukandi Edathil Kanaran Vaidyar, governed by Mitakshara law.

2. He had four sons:

   • Damodaran

   • Achuthan

   • Sekharan (bachelor)

   • Narayanan (died issueless)

3. Plaintiffs’ case:

   • Damodaran married Chiruthakutty around 1940.

   • Plaintiff No.1 (Krishnan) was born in 1942.

   • Plaintiffs claimed ½ share in the coparcenary property.

4. Defendants’ case:

   • Denied marriage between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty.

   • Asserted Damodaran died a bachelor.

   • Alleged Plaintiff No.1 was not legitimate.

5. Trial Court findings:

   • Long cohabitation between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty proved.

   • Presumption of marriage drawn.

   • Plaintiff No.1 held legitimate.

   • Preliminary decree for partition granted.

6. High Court:

   • Accepted paternity.

   • Denied marriage.

   • Treated Plaintiff No.1 as illegitimate.

   • Ultimately set aside the partition decree.

7. Supreme Court:

   • Re-examined documentary and oral evidence.

   • Found overwhelming material indicating marital relationship.

   • Held High Court erred in rejecting presumption of marriage.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Presumption of Marriage
   The Court reiterated the settled principle that continuous cohabitation as husband and wife raises a presumption of valid marriage under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

2. Burden of Rebuttal
   Once such presumption arises, the burden lies heavily on the party denying marriage. Mere denial or absence of direct proof of ceremony is insufficient.

3. Legitimacy Favoured by Law
   The Court reaffirmed that the law leans in favour of legitimacy, and courts must avoid conclusions of bastardy unless clearly compelled by evidence.

4. Evaluation of Evidence
   The Court relied on:

   • Birth certificate

   • Voters list

   • School and service records

   • Insurance documents

   • Newspaper obituary

   • Letters showing financial support
     All of which consistently described Chiruthakutty as wife and Plaintiff No.1 as son of Damodaran.

5. Improper Appellate Interference
   The High Court reversed findings of fact without proper rebuttal of presumption and entertained an unpleaded plea of illegitimacy, which was impermissible.

6. Partition Suits — Procedural Directions
   The Court issued binding directions to Trial Courts to proceed suo motu for final decree after preliminary decree, to curb systemic delays.

---

OPINION OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court held that:

• Long cohabitation between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty stood conclusively established.

• Presumption of valid marriage was rightly drawn by the Trial Court.

• Defendants failed to rebut the presumption.

• Plaintiff No.1 could not be branded as illegitimate.

• High Court committed a serious error in law in denying partition.

Accordingly:

• Appeals were allowed.

• High Court judgment was set aside.

• Trial Court’s preliminary decree for partition was restored.

• Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Further, the Court issued mandatory procedural directions to ensure expeditious completion of final decree proceedings in partition suits under Order XX Rule 18 CPC.

---