The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act affirms a child's right to inherit, unless proven otherwise, promoting equality among heirs.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants herein. By the impugned preliminary decree, the trial court directed partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds into four equal shares among plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the first defendant, thereby excluding plaintiff No. 2.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in accordance with their respective status in the suit. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to one Krishnan, who died intestate on 10.12.2012. The first plaintiff is his widow, and the first defendant is his mother. Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are the children born to Krishnan through the first plaintiff. The sole issue in controversy is whether plaintiff No. 2 is also the child of Krishnan, as she was born to the first plaintiff within four months of her marriage with him.

3. The plaintiffs contend that, though the marriage between the first plaintiff and Krishnan was solemnised on 04.02.2001 and the second plaintiff was born on 12.05.2001, i.e., within four months of the marriage, the second plaintiff is nonetheless the biological child of Krishnan. It is specifically pleaded that the first plaintiff and Krishnan were in a relationship even prior to their marriage, and that the second plaintiff was conceived in the course of such relationship. On the strength of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs assert that, upon the death of Krishnan, the plaint schedule properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and the first defendant in accordance with the rules governing intestate succession, and that each of them is entitled to an equal one-fifth share in plaint item Nos. 1 and 2.

4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs’ claim in so far as it relates to the paternity of the second plaintiff. They specifically contended that plaintiff No. 2 is not the daughter of late Krishnan and disputed the allegation that Krishnan had any premarital relationship with the first plaintiff. According to them, there was no occasion for Krishnan and the first plaintiff to have had access to each other prior to their marriage, particularly since it was an arranged marriage. It was further asserted that, at the relevant time when the child could have been conceived, even the engagement between the parties had not taken place.

5. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Sub Judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the paternity of the second plaintiff. Consequently, the court directed partition of the plaint schedule properties only among plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the first defendant. As the remaining defendants are not Class I heirs of late Krishnan, no relief was granted in their favour.

6. We have heard Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

7. The question that arises for consideration is whether plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of late Krishnan and, if so, whether she is entitled to a share in his properties.

8. We shall first examine whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the claim advanced by the plaintiffs. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined the father of the first plaintiff as PW1. PW1 deposed that, at the time of her marriage, the first plaintiff was already pregnant. He further stated that when defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the parents of Krishnan, came to know that the first plaintiff had conceived through Krishnan prior to the marriage, they strongly opposed the marriage and displayed hostility