D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been referred to a division Bench as per order dated 26-7-1988 passed by our learned brother Justice G. Ramanujulu Naidu. The order of reference reads as follows :"the question raised in the second appeal is whether the illegitimate children of a person can be equated with his natural sons and treated as coparceners for the purpose of claiming a share in their joint family property? In other words the scope of S. 16 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended in 1976 falls for consideration. The question is one of general importance and in the absence of any decision of this court, an authoritative pronouncement on the question by a Division Bench of this court is desirable. I therefore refer this second appeal for decision by a Division Bench of this court. Place the papers before the Hon ble Chief Justice for appropriate order. "

( 2 ) BEFORE we deal with the legal questions that arise for consideration in the second appeal, it would be just and proper to set out, in brief, the facts leading to the present second appeal.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs, the appellants in the second appeal filed a suit O. S. No. 105 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem for partition of the plaint schedule properties into six equal shares and allotment of one such share each to plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 to 3, and to allot the remaining 1/6th share equally among the plaintiffs and the four defendants. The plaintiffs claim that third plaintiff Rosamma and the fourth defendant Boosamma are the two wives of late Rasala Ramaiah and that Ramaiah married third plaintiff in 1951 and that the plaintiffs are the legitimate sons of Ramaiah born to third plaintiff. They claim that the marriage of their mother took place in 1951 at Bhadrachalam. D. 1 to D. 3 are the children of Ramaiah through D. 4. They claim that as they are all members of a Hindu joint family, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to seek partition and they are entitled to equal share along with the defendants 1 and 2. it is claimed that plaintiffs are each entitled to a one-sixth share plus 1 /42nd share whereas the third plaintiff and fourth defendant, the widows of Ramaiah, are entitled to 1/42 nd share each. As defendants did not effect a partition in spite of demands, a registered notice was issued and then the suit for partition was filed.

( 4 ) THE defendants resisted the suit claiming that Rasala Ramaiah never married the third plaintiff and she is not the second wife of Ramaiah. She belongs to a different community, namely, Goldsmith, while Ramaiah is Yadava by caste. Plaintiffs are not the children of Ramaiah. They are not entitled to any share. In the proceedings under the Land Ceilings Act, Ramaiah filed a declaration in C. C. No. 457 of 1975 showing only defendants 1 to 3 as his children and the fourth defendant as his wife. They claim that plaintiff No. 3 is a debaucherous lady and it is not known through whom she begot plaintiffs 1 and 2. After death of Ramaiah, when she claimed that she is the wife of Ramaiah and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of Ramaiah, to avoid litigation and at the instance of the elders of the village, two acres of land in Survey No. 152 was given to the plaintiffs in full settlement of their claims. In that connection, a document was also executed on 12-8-1977. Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition. They have no rights in the property of Ramaiah. Even otherwise, they are estopped from claiming any rights in the property of Ramaiah in view of the prior settlement which took place on 12-8-1977.

( 5 ) THE trial court recorded the following findings : that a marriage did take place between plaintiff No. 3 and Ramaiah but the marriage is not valid as the necessary rituals and ceremonies were not observed nor performed plaintiff No. 3 lived with Ramaiah; she can be considered to be the exclusively kept concubine of Ramaiah and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the illegitimate chil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document