P JAYACHANDRAN V A YESURANTHINAM (DIED) AND OTHERS, 2024 (MAD) 248
Margarette Arulmozhi despite being married to Stella and having five children from that marriage. Jayachandran had earlier executed a settlement deed in favor of Margarette, which he unilaterally revoked after her death. Yesurathinam, Margarette's father and the plaintiff, claimed sole legal heirship under the Indian Succession Act. He sought a declaration of title over the property in question, possession of the property, and an injunction against Jayachandran from alienating it. The trial court, noting the lack of conversion of Jayachandran and Margarette's relationship into a valid marriage, ruled in favor of Yesurathinam, directing Jayachandran to surrender possession of the property. Jayachandran subsequently appealed this decision.
ISSUE: Whether a live-in relationship between a married man and another woman can be equated to a marital relationship for the purpose of claiming rights over property settled in the woman's name.
OBSERVATION: The court found that the concept of being "competent to enter into a contract of marriage" necessitates being of legal age as defined by personal law, unmarried, or not having a living spouse during the duration of the live-in relationship. In this case, Stella, Jayachandran's wife, was alive with their children, and Jayachandran had not obtained a divorce under Christian personal law. Therefore, the court rejected the characterization of Jayachandran's association with the deceased Arulmozhi as a live-in relationship, as argued by Jayachandran's counsel. Given the absence of statutory provisions governing such relationships, they do not confer rights of succession or inheritance over property. The court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing Jayachandran's appeal.
