This regular first appeal is under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the defendants in O.S. No. 121 of 2000 on the file of Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikmagalur, who were aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court awarding each of the plaintiffs in the suit, being four in number, 8/35th share in the joint family properties belonging to the family of the parties as described in schedule to the plaint.

2. Appeal is for the reason that the defendants are not liable to yield the share as decreed by the Trial Court for the reason that the propositus of the joint family of late Lakshmegowda, the husband of the first plaintiff and also claiming to be the husband of the 1st defendant and the father of rest of the parties; that plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the children through the 1st plaintiff-wife and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the children of Lakshmegowda through the 1st defendant/second wife. The said Lakshmegowda had left behind a Will under which the plaintiffs' entitlement was restricted to about 19 acres of agricultural land which he had bequeathed in favour of the 1st wife. The properties being the self-acquired properties of late Lakshmegowda the contents of the Will left behind by late Lakshmegowda would operate after the death of the said Lakshmegowda.

3. Appellants have also urged many other grounds to impugn the judgment and decree of Trial Court, which are neither available to them nor can be made good before the Appellate Court.

4. Be that as it may, the appeal being seriously pursued by the appellants, the impugned judgment and decree requires to be examined by this Court.

5. The appeal having been admitted, the respondents-plaintiffs have entered appearance through Counsel Sri Krishnamurthy Hasyagar.

6. We have heard Sri Bhaskaraiah, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Krishnamurthy Hasyagar, learned Counsel for the respondents.

7. Sri Bhaskaraiah, learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants, in the course of his arguments has while not seriously disputed that the defendants, who had set up the special defence of the Will having not proved the Will before the Trial Court and the Trial Court had no option except to discard the Will has nevertheless urged that the sharing ratio as determined by the Trial Court is erroneous particularly the entitlement of the defendants 2, 3 and 4 to an extent of 3/35th share of the properties, that these defendants, who are in appeal have a better entitlement, that what is now determined by the learned Judge of the Trial Court.

8. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the appellants (in this appeal) and defendants (in the suit) has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi v State of Bihar and Others, particularly, to make us wise about the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to understand, appreciate and to determine the correct entitlement of the appellants in the joint family properties.

9. Sri Bhaskaraiah, learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that in terms of the ratio laid down in this judgment, the illegitimate children of a male Hindu dying intestate would also get a share in the properties held by the father along with his other children, however such rights do not extend to the coparcenary interest held by the father.

10. Appearing on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs Sri Krishnamurthy Hasyagar, learned Counsel would vehemently urge that while the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing any share to the defendants 2, 3 and 4 even on the basis of the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act; that such finding is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Patel Chandrappa and Another v Hanumanthappa and Others1. The learned Counsel would submit that the judgment and the decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be varied or altered to the advantage of appellants-defendants by enhancing their share any further an