LINGAMMA Vs. GANGADHARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition calls for a review of the judgment passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 955/2001 on 24. 7. 2007 and the submission of the learned Counsel Shri Mohammed Saleha mukarram for the review petitioners is that this Court had dismissed the second appeal filed by the review petitioners and confirmed the judgment of the lower appellate Court, which had recorded a finding that the review petitioners, being the children born out of illegal cohabitation between deceased Siddalingegowda and the mother of the review petitioners, are not entitled to any share in the ancestral properties of Siddalingegowda.

(2.) THIS Court had confirmed the said view taken by the lower appellate court and also took the view that a child born out of void marriage is not entitled to a share in the coparcenary property by following the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Chandrappa Vs. Hanumanthappa, reported in ILR 1989 Karnataka 2384, and accordingly the said appeal was dismissed.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the review petitioners is that, subsequently he came to lay his hands on a recent ruling of this court in the case of Smt. Sarojamma Vs. Smt. Neelamma, reported in 2006 (1) Civil L. J. 145, ad as per the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the said case, the position in law is that an illegitimate son can be equated with natural sons and can be treated as coparcener in respect of the properties held by the father, whether the properties are originally joint family properties or not and the only limitation is that, during the life time of the father, an illegitimate son of a void marriage, is not entitled to seek for partition and he can seek partition only after the death of his father.