1. Three minor girls and their mother -- plaintiffs -- are before this Court. They claim a share in the property of one Gopalan. Gopalan is now no more. He passed away in the year 1975. The 1st defendant is admittedly the widow and 2nd defendant, the son. Portions of the properties have been conveyed to defendants 3 to 5. All the defendants resist the plaint claim. They contend that there was no valid marriage between the 1st plaintiff and deceased Gopalan, and that consequently the plaintiffs 2 to 4 cannot claim the status of legitimate children of Gopalan.

2. Gopalan had married the 1st defendant. She had some ailments, which in effect denied to Gopalan the comforts of matrimony. He did not, however, snap that relationship. He married a second time: the 1st plaintiff was the new bride. There is massive evidence to justify the finding of the courts below that a marriage had in fact been solemnised between Gopalan and the 1st plaintiff. It was, however, contended that, in the eye of law, there was no marriage between Gopalan and 1st plaintiff, in view of the subsistence of the earlier marriage and the legal taboo against a marriage during the subsistence of an earlier on