The court emphasized the application of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in determining the legitimacy of children from void and voidable marriages, and the implications of such legitimacy on inheritance rights.

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiffs have filed this suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction in respect of premises bearing No. F-243 (124-C), Village Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. In the Plaint it has been asseverated that the Plaintiffs are the children of late Shri Bhima who died on 15. 6. 1978 leaving behind the suit property; that the Plaintiffs' father late Shri Bhima had two wives. Smt. Nathoo since deceased was his legally wedded wife. that it was during the lifetime of Smt. Nathoo (Plaintiffs mother) that the father of the Plaintiffs had brought Smt. Kalawati in his house and kept her with him as his Keep to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs mother as well as the villagers and the brotherhood. The Defendant No. 4 was not the wedded wife of Shri Bhima; no marriage ceremony ever took place between the two with the result that though the Defendant No. 4 had given birth to Defendants No. 1 to 3 from Bhima, but they were illegitimate sons and not competent in law to inherit anything from the moveable and immovable properties left behind by Shri Bhima. The father of the Plaintiffs had permitted the Defendants No. 1 to 4 to reside with him in the red portion and remained therein in the lifetime of the Plaintiffs' father. The status of Defendants No. 1 to 4 as qua the property in their possession was that of the licensee and they enjoyed the said status during the lifetime of the Plaintiffs' father who died on 15. 6. 1979. however they have been staying therein with the permission of the Plaintiffs.

( 2 ) IN the Written Statement, Defendants No. 2 to 4 have, inter alia, pleaded that they are owners of the said property which was partitioned in 1970 and the respective partition shares were handed over to the respective co-sharers, who have since then remained in possession and occupation of the portions falling in their shares; that after the death of late Shri Bhima the Defendants No. 1 to 4 sold the portion measuring 150 sq. yards of their shares to Shri Surinder Singh s/o Shri Bhoop Singh, who instead have transferred the same in the name of Defendant No. 7. It is further been pleaded that the possessory title of these Defendants has matured into ownership rights as they have been born and brought up in the suit property. It is submitted that these Defendants have the same rights of inheritance over properties left by their father late Shri Bhima. It is further submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 had filed a similar suit for Permanent Injunction which was dismissed in default after these Defendants had filed their Written Statements. The assertion that Defendant No. 4 was not married to late Shri Bhima or that no marriage took place between them has been denied. In para 5 of the Written Statement it has been asserted that Defendant No. 4 is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Bhima and Defendants No. 1 and 3 are born out of their wedlock.

( 3 ) IN IA No. 11061/2003, the Defendants were restrained from alienating, transferring or parting with possession of the portion of the property in their occupation vide Orders dated 24. 11. 2003. IA No. 11906/2003 was filed one month thereafter by the Plaintiffs. In terms of Orders dated December 19, 2003 the Defendants have been injuncted from carrying out any construction in the suit property without due sanction as required from the concerned authorities. On April 26, 2004 all pending applications were disposed of and it was ordered that if any construction is made by the Defendants in the suit property, the same would be done without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Plaintiff and that Shri Ravindra Singh would not claim any equity in respect thereof. The Defendants were restrained from parting with the possession or creating any third party interest in the suit property. IA No. 6691/2004 has been filed by Defendants No. 2 to 4 against the Plaintiff restraining them from raising any unauthorised construction falling in the share of late Shri Gian Chand (Plaintiff No.