The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the respondents to establish their status as legal heirs, and the validity of the marriage and legitimacy of children are crucial in determining entitlement to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.

1. This appeal is by the first respondent in AS. 153/1983 of the District Court, Trivandrum who was the first defendant in O.S. 88 of 1980 of the Munsiffs Court. The suit was one for partition and allotment of the plaintiffs 1/11th share in A schedule property and 1/11th share in the one-half of plaint B schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, against which the first respondent preferred A.S.153 of 1983 before the District Court, Trivandrum. The District Court allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree for partition declaring that, the first respondent is entitled to 1/10 share in the plaint A schedule property and 1/10 in the one-half of the plaint B schedule property. Though the share claimed in the plaint is 1/11, the lower appellate court passed a preliminary decree for 1/10 share. Para 11 of the lower court's judgment states that, since the first respondent has applied for amending the plaint stating that the 8th respondent is not entitled to any share the appellant is entitled to 1/10. The judgment does not say that, the application for amendment was allowed; no order is seen to have been passed on LA 315/1984 filed for the said purpose.

2. The first respondent's case in brief was that, herself and respondents 9 and 10 are the children of deceased Bhaskaran through his second wife, the 8th respondent. The appellant is the first wife of deceased Bhaskaran and respondents 2 to 7 are her children. The appellant, contested the suit. She denied the marriage between Bhaskaran and the 8th respondent. She also denied the claim that, the 1st respondent and respondents 9 and 10 are the children of Bhaskaran.

3. It is admitted that, the appellant is the widow of deceased Bhaskaran, and respondents 2 to 7 are his children born to the appellant. Plaint A schedule was obtained by deceased Bhaskaran as per Ext.Al gift deed, and B schedule was obtained under Ext.A2 sale deed which stands in the name of Bhaskaran and his wife, the appellant.

4. No where in the plaint is there an allegation as to when Bhaskaran died. The date of death of Bhaskaran is relevant in deciding as to whether the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act govern the succession to his estate. Even Para.9 of the plaint which contains the allegation regarding the cause of action does not mention the date of death of Bhaskaran. Since Ext.A2 sale deed in favour of Bhaskaran and the appellant was in 1962, he could have died only after 1962. PW-1 said that Bhaskaran died 18 years ago. She was examined on 6-10-1982. Therefore Bhaskaran should have died in 1964. Consequently, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act applies.

5. Since the status of the first respondent and respondents 8 to 10 are denied, the burden of proof is on those respondents to establish that they are the legal heirs of deceased Bhaskaran. Though the first respondent swears, that the 8th respondent was married by Bhaskaran; even according to her the 8th respondent is the second wife of Bhaskaran. Evidence regarding the said marriage is the deposition of PW.1 and 2, and Ext.A3 and A4. The statements in Exts. A3 and A4 are relied on to substantiate the claim that deceased Bhaskaran had married the 8th respondent, and respondents 1,9 and 10 are his children born to the 8th respondent. PW-1 being the daughter, cannot have any direct knowledge regarding the marriage. The evidence of PW-2 was not accepted by the trial court, and the first appellate court also does not make reliance on his evidence. P W-2 said that, there are records in the S. N. D. P. Branch to evidence the marriage of Bhaskaran with 8th respondent. He also said that, the Secretary and the President of the S. N. D. P. Branch were present at the marriage and they are alive. Neither the said records were summoned, nor the said persons were examined. The trial court was not prepared to act upon the statements in Exts. A3 and A4 as evidence of marriage; but the first appellate court relied on the statements in E