Children born out of wedlock can claim equal rights to inheritance alongside legitimate children, as per Hindu law principles.

JUDGMENT :

R.DEVDAS, J.

These two regular first appeals are filed at the hands of the defendants in O.S. No. 62/2015 and the counter claim raised at the hands of the defendants in the same suit, being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ron.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The suit is filed by the three children of Mudukanagouda and his alleged wife Smt.Nimbavva against defendant No.1 Smt. Sharanavva who claims to be the first wife of Sri Mudukanagouda and against defendant No.2, the purchaser and brother of defendant No.1, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the full owners of the suit schedule properties and consequently injunct the defendants from interference with the suit schedule property; further to declare the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of items No.1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule property as void and not binding on the share of the plaintiffs; further to declare that the plaintiffs along with defendant No.1 have 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule properties.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.4 Smt.Nimbavva married Sri Mudukanagouda in his residence at Hirekoppa village and out of the wedlock plaintiff No.1 was born on 10.05.1996, plaintiff No.2 was born on 27.06.1998 and plaintiff No.3 was born on 16.01.2000. It is contended that Mudukanagouda had an illicit relationship with defendant No.1 and therefore she is not the legally wedded wife of Sri Mudukanagouda and therefore she had no right to sell items No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. It is contended that since she had no right to deal with the properties, the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 are not valid and they are void in law.

5. Defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the claim of the plaintiffs is untenable. It is contended that defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Sri Mudukanagouda and she got married to him about 29 years ago, but they had no issues. In this regard there were constant fights between Mudukanagouda and defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was ill treated for the reason that she was not able to bear a child for Mudukanagouda. It is contended that Mudukanagouda had illicit relationship with plaintiff No.4 and even if plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are born to Mudukanagouda and plaintiff No. 4, in law, they are illegitimate children of Mudukanagouda and therefore the plaintiffs cannot claim equal rights with defendant No.1. Moreover, in the year 2003 defendant No.1 filed O.S. No. 126/2003 before the learned Civil Judge at Ron seeking maintenance against her husband Mudukanagouda. Although Mudukanagouda entered appearance in the suit, he neither filed written statement nor contested the matter. However during the course of the suit Mudukanagouda gave an application and made a statement before the revenue authorities to transfer the khata in respect of items No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1. Consequently, by mutation order bearing No. MR No. 9/ 2003-04 dated 18.03.2004, the revenue records pertaining to items No.1 to 3 of the suit schedule were transferred in the name of defendant No.1. Thereafter defendant No.1 filed a memo and withdrew the suit on16.09.2006.

6. It is contended that Mudukanagouda died on 08.06.2008. Defendant No.1 sold items no.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties to defendant No.2 on 31.01.2015, 01.01.2015 and 02.02.2015 respectively, for a sum of Rs.4,88,000/-, Rs.4,60,0000/- and Rs.1,66,000/- respectively. It was further contended that the plaintiffs have no right to raise a challenge to the sale and transfers made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, as defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of all the suit schedule properties after the death of Mudukanag