Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Application No.3212/2014 for early listing of the misc. appeal is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for admission.

3. Mr. Sameer Sharma, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the court below has completely misdirected itself in holding that merely because Sumitra Bai was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Panchulal, succession certificate with regard to Panchulal's saving bank account as also his provident fund with the JVVNL could not be granted to her two children stated to have been borne out of Sumitra Bai's live-in relationship with the deceased Panchulal. Counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhogadi Kannababu & Ors. vs. Vuggina Pydamma & Ors. (2006 (5) SCC 532) has held that even the progeny of a male born outside formal marriage would be entitled to succession to his personal property. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jinia Keotin & Ors. vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi & Ors. ((2003) 1 SCC 730) to contend that the children born of void or voidable marriages even though not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcenary property would be entitled to claim inheritance in the personal property of parents.

4. Mr. Amit Jindal, appearing for the respondent No.4—Ramswaroop, has supported the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2013, passed by the court below.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 19.01.2013.

Issue No.1 before the court below reads as under :

^^D;k izkFkhZx.k lqfe=kckbZ] dqekhj 'khykckbZ rFkk iou ikapwyky ds ;wdks cSad vark ds [kkrs esa tek jkf'k ,oa th-ih-,Q- dk;kZy; esa tek jkf'k dqy jkf'k :- 1]16]475@& dk mÙkjkf/kdkj izek.k i= izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\

Issue No.3 reads as under :

^^D;k izkfFkZ;k lqfe=kckbZ e`rd ikapwyky dh isa'ku jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\**

6. In my considered opinion, the specific case of the appellants-applicants before the court below was that Kumari Sheela Bai and Master Pawan had been borne out of Sumitra Bai's live-in relationship with Panchulal subsequent to death of his first wife Jadav Bai. This aspect of the matter seems to be escaped the notice of the court below inasmuch as even though marriage of Sumitra Bai with Panchulal was not proved, the court has glossed over the assertion of the appellants-applicants that Kumari Sheela Bai and Master Pawan were borne out of Sumitra Bai's live-in relation with deceased Panchulal. It is well settled that children from a void or voidable marriage under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') would be entitled to succeed to personal property of a person dying intestate as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhogadi Kannababu (Supra) and in Jinia Keotin (Supra).

7. Mr. Amit Jindal, appearing for the respondent No.4—Ramswaroop, has submitted that the respondent No.4—Ramswaroop has already been given compassionate appointment by the erstwhile employer of Panchulal i.e. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter 'JVVNL') as the son of the deceased Panchulal from his first wife Jadav Bai. Counsel for the appellants submits that to the extent of Ramswaroop's appointment following the death of Panchulal, he has no objection. He has however submitted that the appellants Kumari Sheela Bai and Pawan borne out of Sumitra Bai's live-in relationship with Panchulal would be entitled to pro rata succession in the saving bank account of the deceased Panchulal as also his provident fund with the JVVNL as also pension, if any.

8. Heard. Considered.

9. In Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. ((2000) 2 SCC 431 = RLW 2000(1) SC 101), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that by virtue of Section 16 of the Act of 1955 children even of void marriages are legitimate and would be entitled to a share in equal measure with other LRs where the Hindu male dies intestate. Si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document