PREMAN Vs. GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises in this second appeal is whether the son born of a void marriage is entitled to get a share in his father's properties.

(2.) Plaint schedule properties, two in number, admittedly belonged to one Moothoran who died leaving behind his first wife Manikyam, the 9th defendant in the suit and their children, defendants 1 to 8. Plaintiff is the son born to Moothoran in his second wife Manikyam. That marriage was contracted in 1954 by the agreement Ext. A2. Plaintiff sought partition of the properties into 10 equal shares and claimed one such share. The Trial Court found plaintiff to be one of the heirs of Mootharan and granted the relief of partition. On appeal the lower appellate court reversed that decision and refused the relief finding that the marriage between Moothoran and 10th defendant was contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such plaintiff was ineligible to claim a share. Hence the second appeal which was admitted on the following questions of law.

(3.) Heard counsel on both sides.