Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this second appeal challenging the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court, confirmed in first appeal. The first appellant having died during the pendency of the second appeal, appellants 2 to 4 were recorded as her legal representatives.

2. Sri. Ramunni, a Hindu, died intestate on 25-2-1974. His estate is sought to be partitioned. The late first defendant was his widow.- Defendants 2 to 4 are their children. Plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 are, admittedly, the children of Ramunni through Kallyani, who is not a party to the suit, but examined as P.W. 2.

3. Defendants 1 to 4, the appellants herein, contended that there was no valid marriage between Ramunni and Kallyani and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 were the illegitimate children of Ramunni and hence not entitled to succeed to his estate.

4. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that Ramunni and P.W. 2 had undergone the ceremonies of a marriage in 1957. However, it held that the same was void by reason of S.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'),