The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of daughters to an equal share as coparceners, the legitimacy of a child born out of void and voidable marriages, and the application of Hindu Succession and Partition laws.

JUDGMENT :

1. The original plaintiffs and original defendants No.1 and 2 have impugned the same Judgment and Decree of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Beed, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1986 dated 5.9.1992.

2. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as per their original status in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Rangnath was the owner of suit lands. He died on 30/31/03/1961. The plaintiff, No.1 Jaibai, claimed that she married Rangnath and the plaintiff, no.2 Rajaram, was his posthumous son. The defendant, Gangubai, was the daughter of Ranganath. He had another wife, Laxmibai. She was defendant No.1 in the suit. When the suit was filed, she was dead. Hence, her name was deleted from the plaint. After the death of Rangnath, her stepson Bajirao was the Karta of the family. They were the members of the joint family. After the death of Bajirao, the plaintiffs could not pull on with his sons. Hence, they started resing separately. The plaintiffs had claimed a 12/25th share in the suit properties.

4. The contesting defendant denied the plaintiffs' claim that plaintiff Jaibai was the wedded wife and plaintiff No. 2 was the son of Rangnath. They came with a case that the plaintiff was the wife of Waman Eknath r/o Yellamlbghat. She married him in 1965. The plaintiff No.2 was his son. He was not the legitimate son of Ranganath. The plaintiffs were not the legal heirs of Rangnath. Therefore, the suit is bad in law. It has also been averred in the written statement that Jaibai was allegedly married when the first marriage of Rangnath was subsisting. Laxmibai was his first wife; the remaining defendants, Bajirao and his legal heirs, and Gangubai were his legal heirs.

5. The first appellate Court upheld the Judgment and decree of the Court of First Instance. However, he held that plaintiff No.2 was a child of a void marriage. Hence, he is entitled to equal share and modified the order of the Court of First Instance to that extent and granted 1/4 the share to the sons and daughters of Ranganath.

6. By an order dated 15.04.1993, the Court admitted the Second Appeal No. 128 of 1993. The said order read thus:-

"Heard. Admit, grounds Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9".

The above grounds from the appeal memo have been reproduced thus:-

(IV) Whether the daughter Gangubai, would be entitled for the equal share in the share of her father alone in the whole properties left by the deceased father?

(V) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in not considering the cross-objection of the plaintiffs which they have filed in the appeal of the respondents?

(VII) Whether the Courts below are justified in making the share of the appellants to 1/4th as against their claim of 1/4th in the suit properties?

(IX) Whether the Courts below applied properly the provisions of law of Hindu Succession and Partition to the case of the plaintiffs?

7. In Second Appeal No. 205 of 1993, this Court passed an order dated 7.7.1993. The said order reads thus:-

"Heard. Shri. R. R. Jethalia, learned Advocate for the appellants.

The S. A. is admitted vide ground Nos. I to V".

The ground Nos. I to V are reproduced thus:-

(I) That, admittedly the suit property is ancestral joint family property left by deceased Rangnath at the time of his death in the year 1961. Both the Courts below committed material error of law in calculating the share which could be allotted to the present respondent (original plaintiff No.2) from the share which the deceased Rangnath could have been allotted by way of notional partition immediately on the date of death. This is substantial question of law.

(II) That, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the present respondent is an illegitimate child of deceased Rangnath born from the original plaintiff No.1, whose marriage with the deceased Rangnath has held to be null and void under the proivisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that event of the matter, the present respondent could inhe