GIRDHAR Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up for final hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellants herein / defendants No.1 & 2 was admitted for hearing on 1-7-2011 by formulating the following three substantial questions of law: -

(3.) The suit property was originally the property of Shiv Prasad which he got in partition and ultimately inherited by his wife Indroutin Bai. The plaintiff is son of Shiv Prasad out of his wedlock with Indroutin Bai. It is the case of the plaintiff that after death of Shiv Prasad, his mother Indroutin Bai started residing with one Gariba and defendants No.1 & 2 are his sons out of his cohabitation with Indroutin Bai, though no marriage took place between them and therefore the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of 8 acres of land shown in Schedule A of the plaint. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought the relief that he may be granted 1/3 share if the Court finds that defendants No.1 & 2 are also entitled to succeed the property of Indroutin Bai. Defendants No.1 & 2 opposed the prayer made in the plaint by filing written statement stating inter alia that they are legitimate sons of Indroutin Bai out of her wedlock with Gariba in Churi form and therefore they will succeed the property in exclusion of the plaintiff. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record held that no marriage took place between Gariba and Indroutin Bai and defendants No.1 & 2 are illegitimate children of Gariba and Indroutin Bai, but will succeed the property along with the plaintiff by virtue of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which in turn, stood affirmed by the first appellate Court resulting in filing of second appeal by defendants No.1 & 2 which has been admitted by formulating three substantial questions of law and which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment for the sake of completeness.