KAMALAKANT PANDURANG CHIBDE Vs. SUSHILA PANDURANG CHIBDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by original defendants against the judgment and Decree dated August 19, 1988, delivered by Civil Judge, S.D. Mapusa. The facts giving rise to the filing of appeal are as follows:

(2.) The plaintiffs claimed that the property exclusively belonged to pandurang and after his death was inherited by the plaintiffs and defendants had no right or title in the suit property. The plaintiffs sought declaration of their title and perpetual injunction restraining defendants from disturbing their possession. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia claiming that plaintiff No.1 was not legally wedded to Pandurang and plaintiffs Nos.2 to 6 are not their children. The defendants did not dispute that Pandurang married plaintiff No.1 in the year 1950, in accordance with Hindu religious rites but claimed that as the marriage was not registered in accordance with the Portuguese Law, the marriage should be treated as null and void and of no consequence. The defendants did not dispute that they had earlier filed Civil Suit No.3/1977 against the plaintiff and in which plaintiff No. 1 was described as the widow of Pandurang and the remaining plaintiffs as their children.

(3.) Mr. Reis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently urged that the conclusion of the trial Judge that the plaintiff No.1 was legally and validly married to deceased Pandurang is incorrect. The learned counsel urged that under the Portuguese law there cannot be a valid marriage unless it is duly registered. It was also submitted that by two decisions of the Supreme Court of Portugal, the point stands concluded. We are unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. Before examining the provisions to which our attention was invited by the learned counsel it is necessary to reiterate the undisputed facts. Plaintiff No.1 married deceased Pandurang in the former State of Bombay in accordance with Hindu religious rites. The factum of marriage is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff No.1 and Pandurang lived together, from year 1950 till the death of Pandurang in September, 1969, as husband and wife. It is further not in dispute that plaintiffs Nos.2 to 6 were born out of wedlock. With these undisputed facts we will now examine the submission that the factum of marriage should be ignored for want of registration. Article 3 of the Law of Marriage prescribed by Portuguese Decree dated December 25, 1910 provides: