A. L. V. R. S. T. VEERAPPA CHETTIAR versus S. MICHAEL ETC.

A. L. V. R. S. T. VEERAPPA CHETTIAR versus S. MICHAEL ETC.

The Court held that there was no evidence that Bangaru Ammal's marriage was in Asura form: no proof of price or consideration was paid for the bride, and the sum spent by the bridegroom's party was not and could not have been consideration. There is a presumption under Hindu Law that a Hindu marriage is in Brahma form, and this was not rebutted. Thus, Bangaru Ammal's marriage was Brahma form, and the appellants' succession claim fails.

Parties
Appellant: A. L. V. R. S. T. Veerappa Chettiar; Respondent: S. Michael
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 November 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals Nos. 131 and 132 of 1960 / Appeals Against Judgment and Decree of Madras High Court Dated April 4, 1952 in A.s. No. 816 of 1947 and No. 83 of 1948
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Decrees of the High Court set aside; suits dismissed with costs throughout.
Legal Topics
Marriage Forms, Inheritance, Presumption of Law in Hindu Marriages, Validity of Marriage, Kanyadan, Asura Vs. Brahma Marriage, Succession of Property
Hindu Law Family Law Marriage Forms Inheritance Presumption of Law in Hindu Marriages Validity of Marriage Kanyadan Asura Vs. Brahma Marriage +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. L. V. R. S. T. Veerappa Chettiar

Appellant

S. Michael

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals Nos. 131 and 132 of 1960 / Appeals Against Judgment and Decree of Madras High Court Dated April 4, 1952 in A.s. No. 816 of 1947 and No. 83 of 1948

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marriage of Bangaru Ammal was in Asura form or in Brahma form under Hindu Law and its implications for inheritance and property succession.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there was no evidence that Bangaru Ammal's marriage was in Asura form: no proof of price or consideration was paid for the bride, and the sum spent by the bridegroom's party was not and could not have been consideration. There is a presumption under Hindu Law that a Hindu marriage is in Brahma form, and this was not rebutted. Thus, Bangaru Ammal's marriage was Brahma form, and the appellants' succession claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Decrees of the High Court set aside; suits dismissed with costs throughout.

Orders

  • Both the suits are dismissed with costs throughout.
  • One hearing fee awarded.