SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This plaintiff's second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: -

"1. Whether the 1st appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial court holding that the appellant/plaintiff is not the legal son of Ghasiram?

2. Whether the 1st appellate court was justified in holding that the appellant/plaintiff would not have any right in the property of his father Ghasiram as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act in spite of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff was the son of the 2nd wife of the appellant?"

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. Following genealogical tree would demonstrate the relationship among parties: -

Bendu (Dead)
Ghasi (Dead)		Ghasiya (Dead)
Dulli(Dead)	Ghasnin (Plaintiff No. 2)	Punaram
Rohidas (Defendant No. 1)	Suddu (Plaintiff No. 1)

3. Ghasi had two wives Dulli and Ghasnin. Defendant No.1 is son of Ghasi from his wedlock with first wife Dulli, whereas plaintiff No.2 is second wife of Ghasi, which according to the plaintiffs, claimed to have entered into marriage with Ghasi in chudi form during the lifetime of Dulli. Suddu plaintiff No.1, son of Ghasi with his second wife Ghasnin, and Ghasnin filed suit that the suit property was inherited by Ghasi from his father, as such, after death of Ghasi, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have inherited the property and are entitled for share in the suit property and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2, 3 and 4 is null and void. The defendants filed written statement in which the principal plea taken is the plea of denial.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that plaintiff No.2 Ghasnin was married to Ghasi in chudi form and plaintiff No.1 is son of Ghasi with his second wife Ghasnin and each one are entitled for 1/3 share in the suit property. On appeal being preferred by the defendants, the first appellate Court reversed that finding and held that relationship of father and son between plaintiff No.1 and Ghasi is not established and set-aside the decree against which second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff No.1 in which substantial questions of law have been framed which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in setting aside and reversing the well-reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court, as plaintiff No.1 is son of Ghasi out of his wedlock with Ghasnin though in chudi form, therefore, he will be entitled for 1/3 share in the suit property. He would further submit that in case the plaintiff is even held to be the illegitimate son then also by virtue of Section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he would be entitled to share in the suit property left by his father Ghasi. As such, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court be set-aside and that of the trial Court be restored.

6. Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel appearing for the defendants / respondents No.1 and 2, would submit that the plaintiff has failed to establish his relationship with Ghasi as his son, therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit which deserves to be upheld. He would further submit that defendants No.2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers of the suit land, therefore, their interest be protected. He would draw the attention of the Court that by order dated 17-8- 1999, the trial Court has declared that the statement of Ghasnin shall not be read into evidence, as she did not appear for further examination pursuant to th