VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that children born from a second marriage are entitled to an equal share in their father’s ancestral property along with the children from his first marriage. The court observed that when the father himself acknowledges the second marriage and admits that daughters were born through it, they must be treated as legitimate heirs under the law.
Justice Venkata Turumella Gopala Krishna Rao delivered the judgment while dismissing a second appeal filed by a man named Satyanarayana, who had challenged a lower appellate court’s decision granting equal inheritance rights to his six half-sisters.
The dispute arose over ancestral properties belonging to Turangi Somaraju in Gaigolupadu village of Kakinada Rural mandal. The properties included a residential house and vacant land inherited through the family lineage.
Somaraju had initially approached the trial court seeking partition of the property, alleging that his son, Satyanarayana, was refusing to give him and his daughters their rightful shares. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, Somaraju and his daughters challenged the verdict before the Additional District Court in Kakinada.
The appellate court ruled that the ancestral property should be divided into eight equal shares among Somaraju, his son Satyanarayana and the six daughters born through his second marriage.
Challenging the order in the High Court, Satyanarayana argued that his father had never legally remarried after the death of his first wife and that the women claiming to be his half-sisters were not legitimate children. He further contended that Somaraju had accepted Rs 80,000 from him and relinquished all rights over the property.
Rejecting these arguments, Somaraju told the court that his first wife had died when Satyanarayana was eight years old. He later married a woman named Raghava, through whom six daughters were born. Justice Gopala Krishna Rao noted that the property in question was ancestral and not self-acquired. Therefore, all legal heirs, including the six daughters, were entitled to equal rights. The court also found no evidence to support Satyanarayana’s claim that his father had relinquished his property rights for `80,000. Even if such a relinquishment had taken place, the judge observed, it could affect only Somaraju’s own share.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the equal distribution of the ancestral property among all eight heirs.
