Whether the marriage between a Muslim male and a Hindu female is void? Whether the child born in that relationship is legitimate and if so whether, the child will inherit the estate of the father? These are the interesting questions to be decided in this second appeal.

2. Appellant instituted the suit before Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram claiming partition and separation of his 14/16 shares in the plaint A schedule property and half right over plaint B schedule property. Plaint A and B schedule properties admittedly originally belonged to Mohammed Ilias. The case of appellant was that 8th defendant was the first wife of Mohammed Ilias and there was no issue in that wedlock and thereafter Mohammed Ilias married 9th defendant in 1120 M.E and they were residing together as husband and wife in House No. T.C. 13 of Poojappura ward of Thiruvananthapuram and appellant was born to 9th respondent in that wedlock and after the death of Mohammed Ilias 9th defendant married Aliyarkunju and appellant is the only son of Mohammed Ilias and on his death his rights devolved on appellant and first defendant, the brother of Mohammed Ilias and therefore each of them is entitled to one share in plaint B schedule property as the grandson of Zainam Beevi, the mother of Mohamed Ilias and first defendant. He claimed that plaint A schedule property belonged to Mohammed Ilias and on his death, appellant is entitled to 14/16 shares and the remaining shares vest in defendants 8 and 9, the widows.

3. First defendant filed a written statement along with defendants 2 to 4 contending that 9th defendant is not the widow of deceased Mohammed Ilias and appellant is not the son born to 9th defendant in Mohammed Ilias and Mohammed Ilias did not many 9th defendant and therefore appellant is not entitled to claim any share. It was also contended that plaint schedule properties and the remaining properties are in the absolute possession and enjoyment of first defendant, ever since the date of death of his brother Mohammed Ilias and their mother Zaina Beevi and first defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of defendants 2 to 7 and it is valid and binding and appellant is not entitled to any relief. 8th defendant filed a written statement admitting the plaint allegations that appellant is the son of Mohammed Ilias born to the 9th defendant.

4. Learned Sub Judge, on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4., D.W.1, Exts.A-1 to A-6, B-1 to B-4 and X-1 to X-3, upheld the case of appellant and passed a prelimiary decree declaring that appellant is the son of Mohammed Ilias and he is entitled to 14/16 shares in plaint A schedule property and half share in plaint B schedule property. Being the widow defendants 8 and 9 were found to be entitled to 1/16 share each in plaint schedule property. First defendant died during the pendency of the suit itself and defendants 2 to 7 were recorded as his legal heirs along with the defendants 10 to 12, who were additionally impleaded. The Decree and Judgment were challenged before District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in AS. 264 of 1989 by defendants 2 to 4. Learned District Judge, on reappreciation of evidence found that Mohammed Ilias died in 1947 as admitted in the plaint and the fact that appellant was born only in 1949 is also admitted and therefore appellant could not he the son of Mohammed Ilias as he died in 1947. Learned District Judge also found that in Exts.X-1 to X-3 the front page of the SSLC book, the admission register extract of the school as well as the relevant entry in the service hook, appellant is shown as not the son of Mohammed Ilias but Aliyarkunju the second husband of 9th defendant and therefore appellant is not entitled to a share in the plaint schedule properties. Appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. It is challenged in the second appeal.

5. The second appeal was admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law.

(1) Whether a marriage between a Muslim male and a Hindu female is void or ir