The court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of marriage and the execution of legal documents such as Wills and release deeds, and highlighted the need to establish absence of external influence in such matters.

B. MANOHAR, J.-Appellants 1 to 3 are the defendants 3 to 5 and appellants 4 and 5 are the daughters of the deceased first defendant N.C. Govindaraju in O.S. No. 281/1993. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19-12-2003 passed by the Small Cause and Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs declaring that the first plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 1/4th share in item No. 1 properties and also entitled for mesne profit and further declaring that the second defendant is entitled to a share to an extent of 3/8th share in item No. 1 properties and to an extent of 1/8th share in respect of suit item No. 2 to 18 of the suit schedule properties and defendants 3, 4 and defendants 1 (a) to 1(e) are entitled to 1/8th share each in suit item No. 2 to 18 of the suit schedule properties, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession and 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds with mesne profits. At the time of filing of the suit, the first plaintiff was minor and the suit was brought by the second defendant as a next friend. After the first plaintiff attaining majority, the second plaintiff got him impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

3. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the defendants 1 and 2. The second defendant is the father of the first plaintiff and son of the first defendant. The first defendant and his father Chikkaraju Chettiar constituted Hindu undivided joint family and the said joint family was holding lands at Shambugoudanahalli village, H.D. Kote Taluk and also running power loom near Maratha Ramamandira, K.T. Street, Mysore. Further, they were also running cloth business at Makkaji Chowk, Mysore. The said Chikkaraju Chettiar had two sons, i.e., first defendant and another by name Devendra. The said Devendra during the life time of Chikkaraju Chettiar, had gone out of the joint family taking his share and set up his own business separately. The first defendant and Chikkaraju Chettiar constituted to be a joint family. The second defendant was born to the first defendant through his first wife Smt. Kousalya who died in the year 1968. The first defendant had a kept mistress by name Alamelu Kasturi Bai, who is the 5th defendant in the suit. Out of the said relation, they got defendants 3 and 4. Since the marriage of the 5th defendant with the first defendant had taken place during the lifetime of the first wife, the second marriage is not a valid marriage. Defendants 3 and 4 cannot be called legitimate children of the first defendant and therefore they cannot be called as Coparceners.

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that after the death of the first wife, the first defendant neglected the second defendant completely. The marriage of the second defendant was performed in the year 1980. Out of said wedlock, the first plaintiff was born on 26-04-1981. However, the first defendant neglected to maintain the second defendant, his wife and children. The first defendant started acquiring the properties in the name of 5th defendant in order to defraud the second defendant and the plaintiffs and large number of properties were acquired out of the nucleus of the joint family fund. The entire properties were under the common management and the income derived are pooled together for the joint family, for which, the first defendant was the Kartha and Manager. In spite of specific requests made by the plaintiffs, no share was given to the plaintiffs or the second defendant in the joint family properties though they were legally entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. The first defendant was wasting and damaging the income of the joint family properties and he was diverting the entire income to the name of defendants 3 to 5 totally neglecting the second defendant