( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order in I. A. No. 966/87 in O. S. No. 110/70 in the Court el the Subordinate Judge, Chirala,

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent in this revision, who is the son of the 1st respondent, filed a suit for partition against his father. The 3rd respondent is his mother. A prelimanary decree was passed by the trial court on 22=2=1978, Along with the suit there were two other proceedings one petition filed by the 1st respondent against 3rd respondent for dissolution of marriage and another suit filed by the 3rd respondent against her husband for maintanance, Both of them were also disposed of along with partition suit on the lame day and the marriage between the first respondent and third respondent was dissolved. In pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in O. S. No. 110/70, the plaintiff who is 2nd respondent in this petition filed a final decree petition, At that stage, the petitioners have filed on application under. Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to implead them as parties. Their claim is that the 1st respondent married their mother by name Venkayamma alias Vasantha Kumari and that they are children born to the first respondent through the said Vasantha Kumari and therefore they have also got a right in the property, The learned subordinate Judge dismissed the petition holding that they are only illegitimate children and they have no right in the property and therefore they are not necessary or proper parties to the suit, Questioning the same this revision has been filed.

( 3 ) SECTION 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act after it is amended by the amending Act of 1976, reads as follows:-"sub-SECTION (1):- Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act. Sub-section (2):- Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under Section 11, any child be gotten or conceived before the decree is made who would nave been the legitimate child of the parties concerned to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity,sub-section (3):- Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, any case where, but for the passing of mis Act, such child would have been incapable of possession or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents. "

( 4 ) THE lower court proceeded on the assumption that the marriage between the mother of the petitioners i. e. , Venkayamma alias Vasantha Kumari with the first respondent is not proved and therefore the will be only a concubine and 10 they are illegitimate children, But the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the allegations in para 3 (b) of the plaint in o. S. No. 114 ol 1970 in which the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant i. e. , his father stealthily married a girl called Venkayamma alias Vasantha Kumari, daughter ol Popuri Subba Rao and now the defendant is living with venkayamma alias Vasantha Kumari in Karmachedu and other places. Therefore, the plaintiff admits that his father, the respondent herein who is defendant in mat suit had married Vasantha Kumari the mother of the petitioners herein. But what is the effect of such a marriage. It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein was marriage to the 3rd respondent. That married was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on 22-2-1978. So