2017 (9) TMI 1851 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of a suit - Whether a suit which is, in substance, a suit filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable at the behest of a legal representative of a dead plaintiff? HELD THAT - It is obvious that a suit or proceeding between parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage, all have reference to suits or petitions that are filed under the Hindu Marriage Act and/or Special Marriage Act for the aforesaid reliefs. There is no reference whatsoever to suits that are filed for declaration of a legal character under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The examination of the remedies provided and the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act and of the Special Marriage Act show that the statute creates special rights or liabilities and provides for determination of rights relating to marriage. The Acts do not lay down that all questions relating to the said rights and liabilities shall be determined only by the Tribunals which are constituted under the said Act. Section 8(a) of the Family Courts Act excludes the Civil Court's jurisdiction in respect of a suit or proceeding which is between the parties and filed under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act, where the suit is to annul or dissolve a marriage, or is for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation. It does not purport to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court if a suit is filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration as to the legal character of an alleged marriage. Thus, it is clear that the civil court's jurisdiction to determine the aforesaid legal character is not barred either expressly or impliedly by any law. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Family Courts.
3. Substitution of legal representatives upon the death of the original plaintiff.
4. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the suit.

Detailed Analysis:

Maintainability of the Suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
The plaintiff filed a Title Suit under Section 34 for a declaratory decree and under Section 38 for perpetual injunction, claiming that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was not valid. The plaintiff alleged coercion and blackmail by the defendant's father, and that no essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage were performed, nor was the marriage consummated. The reliefs sought included a declaration that the defendant was not legally married to the plaintiff and a permanent injunction restraining her from claiming the plaintiff as her husband.

The respondent argued that the suit was essentially for annulment of marriage and should fall under the Special Marriage Act or the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, as it sought a declaration of legal character, not a decree of nullity under matrimonial laws.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Family Courts:
The respondent contended that the suit should be barred under the Family Courts Act, 1984, specifically Sections 7 and 8, which grant exclusive jurisdiction to Family Courts for matters related to marriage annulment, restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, and dissolution of marriage. The court clarified that these provisions apply to suits filed under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act, not to suits under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration of legal character.

The court cited precedents from various High Courts, including Calcutta, Orissa, Allahabad, and Jammu and Kashmir, which consistently held that suits for declaration of legal status could be maintained in Civil Courts. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not readily excluded unless explicitly stated by statute.

Substitution of Legal Representatives:
Upon the death of the plaintiff, his mother applied to be substituted as the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court allowed the substitution, but the High Court set aside this order, holding that no right to sue survived in favor of the plaintiff's mother.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the suit was not a personal cause of action that died with the plaintiff. Instead, it involved proprietary rights and socio-legal status, which could be pursued by the legal representative. The court referred to the 59th Law Commission Report, which supported the view that third parties could question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit.

Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The respondent argued that the suit was time-barred as it was filed beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant countered by invoking Section 16(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows the cause of action to begin from the date of the plaintiff's death.

The court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the appellant offered to share the deceased plaintiff's estate with the respondent to avoid prolonged litigation. The court directed the respondent to disclose all amounts received due to the alleged marriage and to pay 50% of the total amount to the appellant within a specified period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable and could be continued by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts was not barred by the Family Courts Act for such declaratory suits. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the respondent to share the estate of the deceased plaintiff with the appellant.