RANGAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. R. SIDDARAMAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2001 in R.A. No. 59 of 1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chitradurga arising out of the judgment and decree dated 18.6.1993 in O.S. No. 47 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff, Hosadurga.

(2.) THE Appellants are the Defendants 1, 4 to 8 in the suit. The first Respondent -Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of 1/4th share in the suit property. The Defendants 2 and 3 are the full brothers of the Plaintiff. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the suit properties are the ancestral properties, himself and Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4th share each. The first Defendant contends that the 4th Defendant is his legally wedded wife and Defendants 4 to 8 are the children born to 4th Defendant. The trial Court finds that the 4th Defendant is the second wife of the first Defendant and married during the subsistence of marriage of first Defendant with PW 4, who is the mother of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the marriage being void and the Defendants 4 to 8 have no right of inheritance in the suit ancestral properties and allowed the suit of the Plaintiff declaring 1/4th share and granted preliminary decree. The first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree. Hence, the second appeal by the Appellants -Defendants.

(3.) THE provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act declared that the child born out of the void marriages would be deemed to be legitimate child and further Sub -section (3) declares that the said children born out of void marriages will have no rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents. In other words, the deemed legitimate children of the void marriages under Section 16 are entitled to share in the property of the parents but not in the ancestral estate.