Children from void marriages cannot inherit ancestral property; their rights are confined to their parent's property, consistent with Hindu Succession Act amendments.

Judgment :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This is defendants’ Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 7-5-2011 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 08-A/2011 whereby learned Second Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19-3-2010 passed by 2^nd Civil Judge, Class-1, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No 36-A/2008 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

2. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 30-08-2012 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether appellants No. 2 & 3 ie., Jai Prakash and Lekhchand would become coparceners entitle for share in the coparcenary property in view of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956?”

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 36-A/2008 before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts reflected from the plaint averments are that;

A. The plaintiffs filed a suit before learned Civil Judge Class-1, Rajnandgaon on 22.02.2003 for partition and declaration of sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and binding upon the plaintiff mainly contended that the defendant No.1 is the title holder of the suit property described in Schedule A & B of the plaint. It is also case of the plaintiffs that Ghanaram and Hukum Chand were coparceners in the property situated at village Belargondi and Ghanaram had no sons, but three daughters namely Anasuya, Tagni and Shyam Kunwar were born from the wedlock of Ghanaram and his wife Ameera Bai. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they were married and were living in their matrimonial house. Ghanaram’s brother Hukum Chand had six sons and eldest son was Muralidhar Verma and Ghanaram expired in the year 1922. After death of Ghanaram, his wife had adopted defendant No.1 Muralidhar as his adopted son. Accordingly, adoption deed was executed during the life time of Hukum Chand on 3-6-1944.

B. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that Ameera Bai who is wife of Ghanaram has taken care of Muralidhar, she had also solemnized his marriage and after death of Ghanaram, defendant No.1 Muralidhar inherited the ancestral property. It is also case of the plaintiffs that the property of suit land situated at village Belargondi was in the joint name of Ghanaram and Hukumchand wherein proceeding under Ceiling Act was initiated and in that case defendant No.1 Muralidhar has submitted reply along with affidavit wherein he has mentioned that he has two wives ie., first wife was Sulochana and second wife was Kunjbati. From the wedlock of Muralidhar and Sulochana two sons were born namely Nageshwar and Ramkrishna. It is also case of the plaintiffs that son of Muralidhar namely Nageshwar died in the year 1971 and plaintiff No.1 Bundabai is the widow of Nageshwar and plaintiff No.2 is son of late Nageshwar. During life time of Sulochana, defendant No.1 Muralidhar had kept defendant No.5 as his wife which is void ab initio, as such she cannot be recognized as legally wedded wife.

C. It is also case of the plaintiff that Sulochana was murdered in the year 1976 and for that defendant No.1 was arrested and he was sentenced by the trial Court and subsequently he has been acquitted by the High Court. Since the defendant No.5 was not legally wedded wife, dispute arose between the family members, therefore, defendant No.1 expelled plaintiff No.1 & 2 from his house. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are residing at Sevatapara, Dongargaon and plaintiff No.3 is also residing with them as there was nobody to look after him. It is also case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 has recorded land bearing Khasra No. 527 area 13.37 acres in the name of defendant No.2 on account of family partition whereas defendant No.2 has no title over the suit property as th