JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 15/07/2015 by formulating the following substantial question of law :

“Whether the findings of both the courts below are perverse as per the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ?”

[The parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status given and ranking shown before the trial Court.]

2. The suit property situated bearing Khasra Nos. 27/1 area 1.84 acres and 26/5 area 1.04 acres admeasuring 2.88 acres in total situated at Village Chatidih, Bilaspur was originally owned by Biharilal Jaiswal.

3. It is admitted position on record that Bhagwantin Bai was the legally wedded wife of Biharilal Jaiswal with whom he had one son namely Bajrang Prasad. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are the sons of Bajrang Prasad and defendant No. 6 is the widow of Bajrang Prasad.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is also the daughter of Biharilal Jaiswal, born out of his relationship with her mother defendant No. 7 Tara Devi and as such, being the daughter of Biharilal Jaiswal, she is also entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property along with the defendants and injunction be granted restraining the defendants and in alternative, defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from alienating the suit property.

5. Resisting the suit, defendants No. 1 to 6 filed their written statement and categorically pleaded that defendant No. 7 was the mistress/dasta wife of Biharilal Jaiswal, as such, no marriage was ever solemnized between Biharilal Jaiswal and defendant No. 7 Tara Devi, and the fact that Biharilal Jaiswal also executed a Will deed dated 18/09/1964 (Ex. D/1C) in favour of defendants No. 7 to 11 in which it has categorically been pleaded that defendant NO.7 is dasta wife of Biharilal Jaiswal, it was pleaded by defendants No. 1 to 6 that plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit property and the suit deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned trial Court, upon consideration of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 10 issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27/10/2007 holding that the suit property, being the self-acquired property of Biharilal Jaiswal, only defendants No. 1 to 6 are his successors and defendants No. 7 to 11 are not successors and Biharilal Jaiswal had executed a Will deed dated 18/09/1964 in favour of defendant No. 7, but plaintiff is his illegitimate daughter and therefore, she is not entitled to inherit his property.

7. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13/10/2008, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against which this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in which sole substantial question of law has been formulated and set out in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

8. Mr. M.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in holding that plaintiff is the illegitimate daughter of Biharilal Jaiswal and she would not succeed to the property of Biharilal Jaiswal ignoring Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is absolutely perverse, as such, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below deserves to be set aside and the second appeal deserves to be allowed. He would rely upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564, P.E.K Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi, AIR 1996 SC 1963 and Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, AIR 2019 SC 666.

9. Mr. Shaktiraj Sinha and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently held that no marriage was ever solemnized between Biharilal Jaiswal and defendant No.