[INDEX

OF AUTHORITIES]

TEAM CODE: D-07

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION

Before,

THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF ARANASI

SECTION 7 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF MINIDIA

Kameshwar Narayan Singh ….……………………………………………. PETITIONER

Versus

Heirs of Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh …………...….…… DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Page | 1
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................2

Table of Abbreviations..............................................................................................................3

Index of Authorities..................................................................................................................4

Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................5

Issues Raised.............................................................................................................................6

Summary of Facts.....................................................................................................................7

Summary of Arguments............................................................................................................9

Body of Arguments..................................................................................................................10

ISSUE 1: Whether the suit for the reopening of partition and succession is
maintainable?.....................................................................................................................10
1.1. Kameshwar Narayan Singh's Claim is Barred by the Statutory Limitation Period. .10
1.2. Kameshwar Narayan Singh's Claim is Precluded by the Doctrines of Laches and
Acquiescence....................................................................................................................11

ISSUE 2: Whether PAN Card and Aadhar Card serve as conclusive proof of paternity
in the absence of DNA or other direct evidence?.............................................................12
2.1. PAN and Aadhaar Cards Lack Evidentiary Value in Establishing Paternity.............12
2.2. The primacy of Scientific Evidence in Establishing Paternity..................................13
2.3. Concrete evidence is required in establishing paternity disputes..............................14

ISSUE 3: Whether Kameshwar Narayan Singh have any legal right over the ancestral
property under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956?........................................................15
[3.1] Under Section 16 Of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, An Illegitimate Child Is
Entitled To Inherit Only The Self-Acquired Property Of The Deceased And Not
Ancestral Or Coparcenary Property.................................................................................15
[3.2] The businesses and properties were lawfully partitioned among the legitimate heirs
in 2004, thereby solidifying the rights of the legal heirs and rendering any subsequent
claims legally untenable...................................................................................................18

Prayer......................................................................................................................................20

Page | 2
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS]

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

& And

¶ Paragraph

v. Versus

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

Hon’ble Honourable

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

JHF Joint Hindu Family

Ors. Others

PAN Permanent Account Number

SC Supreme Court

Page | 3
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 11, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)............................17
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 12, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)............................17
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 16 (3), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)................16, 17
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 16, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)............................17
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).....................................18
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 2(ii), No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India)......................18
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India)..................................18
Limitation Act, 1963, art. 65, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 1963 (India)..................................11
Limitation Act, 1963, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 1963 (India)..............................................11
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India)...........................................................13
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 16, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India)..................15
The Income Tax Act, 1961, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).....................................13
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 101, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)....................15
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 112, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)....................14

Online Sources

Fareedunnisa Huma, Children Born Out Of Void Marriage Can't Claim Share In Joint Family
Property: Telangana High Court, LIVELAW (Feb. 13, 2025, 10:04 AM),
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-ruling-child-
from-second-marriage-void-hindu-marriage-act-cannot-inherit-ancestral-property-
238483#:~:text=Reference%20was%20also%20made%20to,whether%20self%2Dacquired
%20or%20ancestral..............................................................................................................17
Kartik Kalra, Guest Post: Illegitimacy-Based Inequality in Post-Coparcenary Hindu Law
– Revanasiddappa and Succession Rights of “Illegitimate” Children, CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW AND PHILOSOPHY (Feb. 12, 2025, 12:15 AM)
https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/guest-post-illegitimacy-based-inequality-
in-post-coparcenary-hindu-law-revanasiddappa-and-succession-rights-of-illegitimate-
children/................................................................................................................................17
Prachi Bharadwaj, Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. SC distinguishes
acquiescence from delay and laches, SCC ONLINE (Feb. 10, 2025, 7:30 PM),

Page | 4
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
6TH WILDLIFE PROTECTION GLC NATIONAL MOOT, 2024-25 [INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES]

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/19/acquiescence-virtually-destroys-the-
right-of-the-person-sc-distinguishes-acquiescence-from-delay-and-laches/?
utm_source=chatgpt.com.....................................................................................................12

Moot Proposition

Moot proposition, 10¶..............................................................................................................19

Moot proposition, 12¶..............................................................................................................20
Moot proposition, 4¶................................................................................................................18
Moot proposition......................................................................................................................20

Cases

Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta, 2015 (17) SCC 26.....................................................................16

Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors, (2010) 11 SCC 483......................17
Binod Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2014 AIR SCW 6310..................................................13
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, 1993 (3) SCC 418....................................................14
Jai Singh v. Shakuntala, 2002 (3) SCC 634.............................................................................15
Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, (2003) 1 SCC 730.....................................................17
K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573...............................................................11
Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, 2001 (5) SCC 311..........................................................................15
Kavita Kandhari v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (6) SCC 664..................................................13
Mohanlal Ramchandra Gujrathi v. Ghanshyamdas Ramchandra Gujarathi, (1952) 2 SCC 316.
..............................................................................................................................................19
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, AIR 2014 SC 932...............................14
Rachakonda Venkat Rao v. R. Satya Bai, (2003) 7 SCC 452...................................................11
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1.............................................................17, 18
Sarvamma v. U. R. Virupakshaiah (2010) SCC Kar 16...........................................................18
Shakuntala Devi v. Kamla & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 390.............................................................11
Sri Kenchegowda v. K.B. Krishnappa & Ors, (2011) 4 S.C.R. 675.........................................17

Page | 5
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Defendant humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Family Court of Aranasi
under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which confers jurisdiction upon the Family
Court for the following matters:

Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984:

Section 7: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall have jurisdiction
over:

I. Section 7(1)(c): a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect
to the property of the parties or of either of them.

II. Section 7(1)(e): a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any
person.

Page | 6
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ISSUES RAISED]

ISSUES RAISED

The following issues are most humbly and respectfully presented before the Hon’ble Family
Court of Aranasi for adjudication:

[ISSUE-I]

Whether the suit for the reopening of partition and succession is maintainable in light of the
limitation period and principles of acquiescence?

[ISSUE-II]

Whether PAN cards and Aadhar cards serve as conclusive proof of paternity in the absence
of DNA or other direct evidence?

[ISSUE-III]

Whether Kameshwar Narayan Singh have any legal right over the ancestral property under
the Hindu Succession Act of 1956?

Page | 7
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [SUMMARY OF FACTS]

SUMMARY OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

The State of Uttam Pradesh, a populous region in the Union of Mindia, is home to the historic
city of Ananrasi along the river Manga. The fertile plains of Manga and Damuna make it a
key agricultural hub.

The Cholnagar Estate, established by the British Empire after the 1857 mutiny, was originally
vested in Raja Het Singh for Rs. 93,000. Raja Hukum Rai Bahadur Mansingh later inherited
it and then Raja Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh in 1961. After the abolition of
Zamindari, the estate expanded into fruit jam and jelly businesses, becoming a leading
industry player.

LIST OF EVENTS

EVENTS DESCRIPTION

1941 Raja Het Singh passes away, and Raja Hukum Rai Bahadur Mansingh
inherits Cholnagar Estate.

1961 Raja Hukum Rai Bahadur Mansingh dies, and his son Maheshwari
Narayan Bahadur Mansingh succeeds the estate.

1992 Maheshwari develops a close friendship with Meenal, who was engaged to
Girijesh Singh, but their relationship ended.

May 16, Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh dies of a heart attack.

2004,

2004-2024 His estate and businesses are managed by his wife Maharani Priyamvada
and their children Priyam, Mahesham, and Runal.

December Kameshwar Narayan Singh, son of Meenal, arrives at the Cholnagar

12, 2024 palace, claiming to be Maheshwari's illegitimate son and demanding a
share in the estate.

December Kameshwar files a suit in the Family Court of Ananrasi, seeking reopening
2024 of the partition and succession.

Page | 8
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
6TH WILDLIFE PROTECTION GLC NATIONAL MOOT, 2024-25 [S YNOPSIS
OF FACTS]

THE ACTION BY PETITIONERS

Kameshwar Narayan Singh, accompanied by his mother Meenal, claims to be the biological
son of Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh and seeks a share in the Cholnagar Estate.
He presents Aadhaar and PAN cards listing Maheshwari as his father and files a case in the
Family Court of Ananrasi for reopening partition and succession. He argues that even an
illegitimate son is a legal heir, while Maheshwari's family opposes the claim, denying both
paternity and inheritance rights. The case centers on the legal validity of Kameshwar’s claim.

PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE-I]

[ISSUE-II]

[ISSUE-III]

Page | 10
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the suit for the reopening of partition and succession is
maintainable?

¶1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the suit for the reopening of
partition and succession is maintainable as firstly, Kameshwar Narayan Singh's Claim is
Barred by the Statutory Limitation Period, and secondly, Kameshwar Narayan Singh's Claim
Is Precluded By The Doctrines Of Laches And Acquiescence.

1.1. KAMESHWAR NARAYAN SINGH'S CLAIM IS BARRED BY THE STATUTORY LIMITATION

PERIOD

¶2. The Limitation Act, 1963,1 serves to promote legal certainty by prescribing specific time
frames within which claims must be brought forward. Article 65 of this Act stipulates a 12-
year limitation period for suits seeking possession of immovable property based on title. 2 This
means that any challenge to the possession or partition of such property must be initiated
within 12 years from the date the right to sue accrues.

¶3. Judicial precedents have consistently reinforced the importance of adhering to prescribed
limitation periods to maintain legal stability and protect established property rights. In
Rachakonda Venkat Rao v. R. Satya Bai, the Supreme Court underscored that suits for
partition must be filed within the limitation period to prevent the disturbance of long-settled
arrangements.3 In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, the Supreme Court reiterated that parties must
assert their legal rights within the prescribed limitation period to avoid the disruption of
legally recognized property distributions.4 In Shakuntala Devi v. Kamla, the Court held that
mere claims of kinship or succession do not extend limitation periods unless there is a
demonstrable legal impediment that prevented the claimant from asserting his rights earlier. 5

¶4. In the present case, upon the demise of Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh in 2004,
the Cholnagar Estate was partitioned among his legitimate heirs: Maharani Priyamvada,
Priyam, Mahesham, and Runal. This partition has been recognized and acted upon for over
two decades, establishing a settled ownership structure. Kameshwar Narayan Singh surfaced
1
Limitation Act, 1963, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 1963 (India).
2
Limitation Act, 1963, art. 65, No. 36, Acts of Parliament, 1963 (India).
3
Rachakonda Venkat Rao v. R. Satya Bai, (2003) 7 SCC 452.
4
K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573.
5
Shakuntala Devi v. Kamla & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 390.

Page | 11
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

in 2024, asserting a claim to the Cholnagar Estate, a full 20 years after the partition was
affected in 2004. This delay exceeds the statutory limitation period, rendering his claim prima
facie time barred.

1.2. KAMESHWAR NARAYAN SINGH'S CLAIM IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINES OF

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

¶5. The Doctrines of Laches and Acquiescence are equitable principles designed to prevent
injustice resulting from unnecessary delays in asserting legal rights. Rooted in the maxim
"equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights," Laches addresses situations
where a claimant's undue delay in pursuing a right or claim prejudices the opposing party.
This principle emphasizes that legal remedies are reserved for those who promptly assert
their rights, discouraging negligence and procrastination.6

¶6. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Acquiescence posits that if a party, despite having the
opportunity, fails to assert their rights and remains passive while another party acts to their
detriment based on this inaction, the former may be estopped from later asserting that right.
Essentially, a party's silence or inaction when they have a duty to speak or act can lead to a
loss of rights.7

¶7. In this case, Kameshwar Narayan Singh and his mother, Meenal, did not assert any claims
regarding his paternity or inheritance rights during Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh's
lifetime or in the two decades following his death in 2004. This prolonged silence, despite
ample opportunity to voice any claims, suggests a tacit acceptance of the existing state of
affairs.

¶8. Moreover, the legitimate heirs—Maharani Priyamvada, Priyam, Mahesham, and Runal—
have, over the past two decades, managed, invested in, and possibly altered the Cholnagar
Estate based on their uncontested ownership. Introducing a new claimant after such an
extended period would unjustly disrupt their settled expectations and rights.

6
Prachi Bharadwaj, Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. SC distinguishes acquiescence from
delay and laches, SCC ONLINE (Feb. 10, 2025, 7:30 PM),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/19/acquiescence-virtually-destroys-the-right-of-the-person-sc-
distinguishes-acquiescence-from-delay-and-laches/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
7
Prachi Bharadwaj, Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. SC distinguishes acquiescence from
delay and laches, SCC ONLINE (Feb. 10, 2025, 7:30 PM),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/19/acquiescence-virtually-destroys-the-right-of-the-person-sc-
distinguishes-acquiescence-from-delay-and-laches/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

PAGE | 12
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

¶9. In conclusion, the doctrines of laches and acquiescence serve to prevent Kameshwar
Narayan Singh from asserting inheritance rights over the Cholnagar Estate after a significant
and unexplained delay. His prolonged inaction, coupled with the potential prejudice to the
current heirs, reinforces the application of these equitable doctrines to bar his claim.

ISSUE 2: Whether PAN Card and Aadhar Card serve as conclusive proof of paternity
in the absence of DNA or other direct evidence?

¶10. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the PAN Card and Aadhar card
does not serve as conclusive proof of paternity as firstly, PAN and Aadhaar Cards Lack
Evidentiary Value in Establishing Paternity; secondly, there is primacy of Scientific Evidence
in Establishing Paternity and thirdly, concrete evidence is required in establishing paternity
disputes.

2.1. PAN AND AADHAAR CARDS LACK EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN ESTABLISHING

PATERNITY.

¶11. The defendant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the PAN card is issued
under the Income Tax Act, 1961,8 primarily as a taxation document to track financial
transactions and prevent tax evasion. It does not have provisions mandating biological
verification for recording parental details.

¶12. Similarly, the Aadhaar card is governed by the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016,9 and serves as an identity
document facilitating welfare distribution, financial transactions, and authentication and does
not track parental lineage. It is for this reason that the Hon’ble Patna High Court, in Binod
Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar,10 explicitly held that an Aadhaar card alone cannot be relied
upon to establish family relationships.

¶13. The same stance was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in Kavita
Kandhari v. State of Maharashtra,11 that government-issued identity documents, including
Aadhaar, do not constitute irrefutable proof of parentage.

8
The Income Tax Act, 1961, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
9
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, No. 18,
Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).
10
Binod Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2014 AIR SCW 6310.
11
Kavita Kandhari v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (6) SCC 664.

PAGE | 13
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

¶14. The defendant humbly contends, thus, in the present case, that the issuance process of
both PAN and Aadhaar cards does not incorporate biological verification mechanisms. The
PAN card relies on self-declared parental details without necessitating supporting evidence
such as DNA tests or verified birth certificates. Thus, the authenticity of parental information
remains unverified, rendering it unreliable as conclusive proof of paternity.

¶15. Similarly, Aadhaar registration allows applicants to provide self-declared parental

information, which is accepted without mandatory validation through official records or
genetic testing. This lack of stringent verification makes it susceptible to errors,
misrepresentation, or fraudulent claims regarding parentage.

¶16. In the present case, the judgments cited above clearly align with this position,
emphasizing that these documents cannot serve as conclusive proof due to their primary
purpose of identification rather than biological authentication. Therefore, given the absence
of biological verification in PAN and Aadhaar issuance, these documents do not meet the
threshold for conclusive proof of paternity, and thus, in matters concerning paternity, reliance
should be placed on legally recognized evidence such as DNA testing, authenticated birth
certificates, or judicial declarations rather than identity documents that lack robust
verification mechanisms.

2.2. THE PRIMACY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN ESTABLISHING PATERNITY.

¶17. The defendant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that Courts all over India have
consistently emphasized DNA testing as the most reliable and conclusive method to establish
paternity. It is for this reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Cour in Goutam Kundu v. State of
West Bengal,12 held that in cases of disputed paternity, scientific evidence such as DNA
testing should be preferred over documentary proof, as documents can be manipulated or
misrepresented.

¶18. Similarly, in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik,13 the Supreme Court
ruled that DNA evidence has greater evidentiary value than presumptive legitimacy arising
from documentary evidence or societal recognition.

¶19. Additionally, under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872,14 a child born
during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate unless rebutted by clear and cogent
12
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, 1993 (3) SCC 418.
13
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, AIR 2014 SC 932.
14
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 112, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

PAGE | 14
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

evidence. However, in Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram,15 the Supreme Court emphasized that
documentary evidence alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy without
substantial proof, thereby reinforcing the primacy of scientific methods.

¶20. In the present case, thus, it does not leave any ambiguity if one is to go with the legal
framework and judicial precedents establish that while documents such as birth certificates,
Aadhaar, or PAN cards may indicate parental details, they do not constitute conclusive proof
of paternity. DNA testing, being a scientific method with near-absolute accuracy, provides
definitive results and eliminates the risk of errors or fraudulent claims.

¶21. Therefore, in cases of contested paternity, reliance should be placed on DNA testing
rather than identity documents, ensuring that legal determinations align with objective and
verifiable evidence.

2.3. CONCRETE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN ESTABLISHING PATERNITY DISPUTES.

¶22. The defendant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that under Section 16 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956,16 illegitimate children have rights over the self-acquired
property of their parents but must establish paternity beyond doubt before claiming
inheritance rights.

¶23. This position was reiterated by the Hon’ble SC in Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun,17 by

holding that the inheritance rights of illegitimate children apply only to self-acquired property
and that such claims must be substantiated with strong and convincing evidence.

¶24. Additionally, Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872,18 explicitly states that
the party making an assertion must prove it, reinforcing the responsibility of the claimant to
provide substantive proof in inheritance disputes. These assertions must then also be backed
with proper legal evidence and, thus, should not be “mere assertions” as held in Jai Singh v.
Shakuntala,19 by the Hon’ble SC.

¶25. In the present case, the claimant, Kameshwar Narayan Singh, has failed to provide
conclusive proof to substantiate his claim. He has not submitted DNA evidence, reliable
witness testimonies, or any other credible proof that could verify his paternity beyond doubt.

15
Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, 2001 (5) SCC 311.
16
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 16, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
17
Revansiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2011 AIR SCW 2447.
18
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 101, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
19
Jai Singh v. Shakuntala, 2002 (3) SCC 634.

PAGE | 15
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

¶26. The absence of such evidence significantly weakens his claim to inheritance rights.
Furthermore, neither Meenal nor Kameshwar raised this claim during Maheshwari Narayan
Bahadur Mansingh’s lifetime, which raises questions about the credibility and legitimacy of
their assertions. Moreover, identity documents such as PAN and Aadhaar cards, which allow
self-declaration of parental details, do not meet the legal threshold required to establish
paternity in inheritance disputes as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Banarsi Dass v.
Teeku Dutta.20

¶27. Therefore, in light of the arguments presented the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) would apply as the claimant is making
dubious assertions without corroborative proof, making it essential for courts to demand
concrete evidence in such cases, which the claimants’ essentially lack and therefore, the
petitioner’s case is liable to be quashed.

ISSUE 3: Whether Kameshwar Narayan Singh have any legal right over the ancestral
property under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956?

¶28. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that for the sake of argument, even if
Kameshwar Narayan Singh is established as the illegitimate child of Maheshwari Narayan
Bahadur Mansingh, he would still be excluded from claiming rights to the ancestral property.
Firstly, under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, an illegitimate child is entitled to
inherit only the deceased's self-acquired property, not ancestral or coparcenary property.
Secondly, the businesses and properties were lawfully partitioned among the legitimate heirs
in 2004, thereby solidifying the rights of the legal heirs and rendering any subsequent claims
legally untenable.

[3.1] UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, AN ILLEGITIMATE

CHILD IS ENTITLED TO INHERIT ONLY THE SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF THE
DECEASED AND NOT ANCESTRAL OR COPARCENARY PROPERTY.

¶29. Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 21 (HMA) limits the inheritance rights of
children born out of void or voidable marriages, granting them inheritance only to the self-
acquired property of their parents and not the ancestral property. Section 16(1) of the HMA
confers legitimacy on children born from void or voidable marriages, and Section 16(3)

20
Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta, 2015 (17) SCC 26.
21
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 16 (3), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).

PAGE | 16
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

restricts their inheritance rights to the self-acquired properties of their parents, excluding
ancestral property.22 The children born from void marriages are entitled only to the self-
acquired property of their parents and do not have rights over ancestral or coparcenary
property.23 They are not coparceners according to the Hindu Mitakshara law.24

¶30. Such children are excluded from inheriting coparcenary or ancestral property, as the
courts upheld this distinction in cases like Revanasiddappa & Ors. v. Mallikarjun & Ors.25
and Sri Kenchegowda v. K.B. Krishnappa & Ors. 26, where it was held that the children
born out of marriages deemed void and voidable under Sections 11 27 and 1228 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 are categorised illegitimate, and therefore, their rights about property and
inheritance are limited. Section 16(3)29 provides that illegitimate children are only entitled to
parents' self-acquired property and have no right in JHF's coparcenary property. This was
done considering a balance between the rights of children born from valid marriages and
those from void/voidable marriages. It safeguards children's property and inheritance rights
from valid marriages and ensures they are not interfered with.30

¶31. These decisions affirm that the legislative intent behind Section 16 31 It was to erase the
stigma associated with illegitimacy but not to extend equal inheritance rights to illegitimate
children concerning ancestral or coparcenary property.32 The inheritance rights conferred by
Section 1633 The HMA is thus restricted to the self-acquired property of the parent and does
not encompass ancestral or coparcenary property, which passes under different principles of
Hindu law.

[3.1.1] The Cholnagar Estate, including its land holdings, is ancestral.

22
Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors, (2010) 11 SCC 483.
23
Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, (2003) 1 SCC 730.
24
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1.
25
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1.
26
Sri Kenchegowda v. K.B. Krishnappa & Ors, (2011) 4 S.C.R. 675.
27
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 11, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
28
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 12, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
29
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 16 (3), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
30
Fareedunnisa Huma, Children Born Out Of Void Marriage Can't Claim Share In Joint Family Property:
Telangana High Court, LIVELAW (Feb. 13, 2025, 10:04 AM), https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-
court/telangana-high-court-ruling-child-from-second-marriage-void-hindu-marriage-act-cannot-inherit-
ancestral-property-238483#:~:text=Reference%20was%20also%20made%20to,whether%20self%2Dacquired
%20or%20ancestral.
31
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 16.
32
Kartik Kalra, Guest Post: Illegitimacy-Based Inequality in Post-Coparcenary Hindu Law – Revanasiddappa
and Succession Rights of “Illegitimate” Children, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND PHILOSOPHY (Feb. 12, 2025,
12:15 AM) https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/guest-post-illegitimacy-based-inequality-in-post-
coparcenary-hindu-law-revanasiddappa-and-succession-rights-of-illegitimate-children.
33
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 16.

PAGE | 17
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

¶32. The Cholnagar Estate, in which Kameshwar claims an interest, retains its character as
ancestral property. The applicable law governing the ancestral property of Hindus is
the Hindu Succession Act of 195634. Under Section 2(ii)35, ancestral property is defined as
property inherited up to four generations through the male lineage, remaining undivided
throughout this period.36 According to Hindu law, any income or assets generated from
ancestral property inherently retain their ancestral character. This classification implies that
all coparceners have a legitimate claim to these business assets and incomes.37

¶33. The Cholnagar Estate, having been passed down through successive generations of the
Mansingh family, retains its character as ancestral property. The estate was initially vested in
Raja Het Singh by the British Empire, who, in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising, received
the estate as part of a reward for his loyalty. Upon his demise, the property was inherited by
his son, Raja Hukum Rai Bahadur Mansingh. Upon Raja Hukum Rai’s death in 1941, it was
passed down to his son, Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh. This inheritance chain
indicates that the estate has remained in the family for several generations without partition or
division. As such, it retains its status as ancestral property under Hindu law.38

¶34. The ownership of ancestral property is subject to coparcenary rights, which do not
extend to illegitimate children.39 This provision implies that while such children are deemed
legitimate, their inheritance rights are confined to the self-acquired properties of their parents,
excluding ancestral or joint family property.

¶35. In the present case, Cholnagar Estate, originally granted to Raja Het Singh in 1857, has
been passed down through successive generations—Raja Hukum Rai Bahadur Mansingh and
subsequently Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh—without any partition, thereby
retaining its status as ancestral property. The transformation of the Cholnagar Estate into a
jam, jelly, and pickle business further underscores its ancestral nature. The capital and
resources utilized to establish and expand these ventures were derived from the ancestral
estate itself. Therefore, the profits and assets accrued from the jam, jelly, and pickle
enterprises are considered ancestral property.

34
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
35
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 2(ii), No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
36
Sarvamma v. U. R. Virupakshaiah (2010) SCC Kar 16.
37
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).
38
Moot proposition, 4¶.
39
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1.

PAGE | 18
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

¶36. Furthermore, Kameshwar Narayan Singh asserts that he is the son of the late
Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh, born from an alleged illicit relationship with
Meenal. Assuming, for argument's sake, that Kameshwar's claim of paternity is valid, his
status would be that of a child born from a void or voidable marriage under Hindu law. Given
the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations, Kameshwar's inheritance rights would be
confined to Maheshwari's self-acquired property. The Cholnagar Estate, being ancestral
property, would not fall within the ambit of assets he is entitled to inherit.

[3.2] THE BUSINESSES AND PROPERTIES WERE LAWFULLY PARTITIONED AMONG THE

LEGITIMATE HEIRS IN 2004, THEREBY SOLIDIFYING THE RIGHTS OF THE LEGAL HEIRS

AND RENDERING ANY SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS LEGALLY UNTENABLE.

¶37. Following the death of Maheshwari Narayan Bahadur Mansingh, the Cholnagar Estate
was divided among his legitimate heirs in 2004. 40 This partition was conducted in accordance
with Hindu law, and it was a lawful and final distribution of the property. It is well-
established that once a partition of the joint family property has been lawfully executed and
no fraud or undue influence has been proven, such partition cannot be reopened after a
significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court, in Mohanlal Ramchandra Gujrathi v.
Ghanshyamdas Ramchandra Gujrathi, held that a party seeking to reopen a partition could
not complain after an undue delay, mainly where the accounts of the joint family property
were accessible and could have been examined with ordinary diligence.41

¶38. Further, in Sukhrani (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors. v. Hari Shanker & Others , the Supreme
Court reiterated that while partitions may be reopened if there is a legitimate ground, such as
fraud or if the partition was unjust—particularly in cases involving minors—these claims
must be raised promptly. The Court emphasised that delayed claims, without substantial
justification, cannot be entertained as they undermine the stability and certainty of settled
partitions. The rights of the parties in possession of the property, who have accepted the
partition and conducted their affairs based on it, should be protected. It is further submitted
that the reopening of a partition after a significant period could result in the unnecessary
destabilisation of the family property and its management, thereby creating avoidable legal
uncertainty.

40
Moot proposition, 10¶.
41
Mohanlal Ramchandra Gujrathi v. Ghanshyamdas Ramchandra Gujarathi, (1952) 2 SCC 316.

PAGE | 19
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

¶39. In the present case, Kameshwar Narayan Singh's claim to reopen the partition, despite
being finalised in 2004, is both legally impermissible and factually unjustifiable. The
partition occurred over two decades ago, and there has been no evidence to suggest that it
was conducted fraudulently or unfairly.42 Moreover, there is no reasonable explanation for
why Kameshwar chose to raise this claim after a prolonged period, especially when he was
aware of the family’s affairs and the partition proceedings, given Meenal’s cordial relations
with the family.43 Allowing such claims after a considerable delay would set a dangerous
precedent, whereby parties dissatisfied with final settlements could disrupt established rights,
leading to an influx of baseless petitions and burdening the judicial system with unnecessary
cases. Such an outcome would undermine the legal principle of finality in partition matters
and place an undue strain on the courts.

42
Moot proposition.
43
Moot proposition, 12¶.

PAGE | 20
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS
 [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Family Court of Aranasi that it may be pleased to:

1. Declare that the suit for the reopening of partition and succession is not maintainable
2. Declare that the PAN Card and Aadhar Card do not serve as conclusive proof of
paternity in the absence of DNA or other direct evidence.
3. Declare that Kameshwar Narayan Singh does not have any legal right over the
ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

AND/OR

Render any other Order, Direction, Relief that it may deem fit, in the best interest of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the respondents shall duty bound forever pray.

All of which is most respectfully affirmed and submitted.

PLACE: HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF ARANASI

DATE: 18TH FEBRUARY 2025

SD/-_______

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Page | 21
MEMORIAL for DEFENDANTS