The acknowledgment of paternity must establish the acknowledgment of legitimacy under Mahomedan Law to prove entitlement to inheritance.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendants in O. S. No. 92/1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chickmagalur, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-6-1998.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of parties before the trial Court are as follows :the plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. No. 92/ 1993 on 26-8-1993 for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to deliver his 2/11th share in the schedule properties and for a direction to enquire into mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of realization. The suit schedule property comprises of 2 house properties situate in Chickmagalur. It is averred in the plaint that: the plaintiff and defendants are the children of Gulame Ghouse Khan (hereinafter referred to as "g. G. Khan"), who was working as a driver; he died on 27-9-1964 at Chickmagalur; G. G. Khan had married Smt. Khuthejabi of Kapu in south Canara District and out of the said wedlock of G. G. Khan and Smt. Khuthejabi, the plaintiff was born; after the death of the mother of the plaintiff Khuthejabi, G. G. Khan married Smt. Ayesha of Tumkur and she died within 15 days of the marriage; thereafter, G. G. Khan married Smt. Husanabi of Chickmagalur and out of the said wedlock, defendants 1 and 2 were born; after the death of Smt. Husanabi, G. G. Khan married Smt. Fathimabi of Chickmagalur and out of the said wedlock, defendants 3 to 6 were born. It is further averred that: G. G. Khan was the owner of the schedule properties; the plaintiff during the lifetime of his father had joined Government service; the plaintiff was transferred from place to place and he took voluntary retirement from service on 30-6-1991; the plaintiff was under the impression that katha in respect of the schedule properties continued to stand in the name of his late father, but, he learnt that defendants, filthily, by creating some documents, got the katha changed to their name; however, possession of schedule properties continues with defendants; the plaintiff has been in constructive possession of the joint family properties; after his retirement, though the plaintiff repeatedly asked defendants for partition of the suit schedule properties and to deliver him his 2/11th share in the schedule properties, by metes and bounds, defendants went on postponing; the plaintiff made an application to Masjid-A-Ajam for partition of suit schedule properties and the masjid authorities issued an endorsement since defendants did not turn up before the Masjid-A-Ajam and wherefore, the suit for the above said reliefs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit denying the averments made in the plaint that: G. G. Khan had married Smt. Khuthejabi and that the plaintiff was born out of the wedlock between G. G. Khan and Smt. Khuthejabi and that G. G. Khan after the death of Smt. Khuthejabi, had married Ayesha and after the death of Ayesha, married Smt. Husanabi and after her death married Smt. Fathimabi as averred in the plaint. It is averred in the written statement that Smt. Husanabi was the first wife of G. G. Khan and defendants 1 and 2 were born out of the said wedlock. The marriage between Hussainabi and G. G. Khan was performed on 15-8-1942. Hussainabi died on 6-1-1950 and after her death, G. G. Khan married Smt. Fathimabi and out of the said wedlock, defendants 3 to 6 were born and Smt. Fathimabi died on 27-1-1983. The plaintiff is not the son of G. G. Khan. It is further averred that: the second item of the suit schedule property had been given by G. G. Khan to his second wife Fathimabi in lieu of Mahr by way of declaration dated 7-8-1964; subsequently, Smt. Fathimabi, by way of declaration dated 24-11-1982 has given the said item No. 2 of schedule properties to defendants 5 and 6 for meeting the expenses of their marriage; after the death of G. G. Khan, Smt. Hussainabi and Smt. Fathimabi, defendants have partitioned the properties detailed in the plaint schedu