The central legal point established in the judgment is the legal entitlement of an illegitimate child to inherit the property of the deceased under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

P.S.Rana, J.

Present appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Karsog District Mandi HP in Civil Suit No. 103/99-93 decided on 30.06.2000 titled Soma Devi and others Vs. Balak Dass and others affirmed by learned Additional District Judge Mandi HP in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2000 decided on 31.10.2002 titled Balak Ram and another Vs. Smt. Soma Devi and others.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Soma Devi and others filed suit for declaration and for possession as a consequential relief pleaded therein that plaintiff No.1 Soma Devi is legally wedded wife of Sh Khushal Singh. It is further pleaded that document of marriage was executed between Khushal Singh deceased and plaintiff No.1 on 5.12.1983 at village Suin illaqua Shumali Tehsil Karsog District Mandi in the presence of witnesses. It is further pleaded that Khushal Singh deceased agreed to maintain minor Savitri Devi also. It is further pleaded that Khushal Singh was the owner of suit property. It is further pleaded that after the execution of agreement of marriage between Khushal Singh and Soma Devi marriage was solemnized at village Beri Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur according to custom and rites of the parties on dated 7.12.1983. It is further pleaded that after the solemnization of the marriage plaintiff and deceased Khushal Singh were living as husband and wife and lastly resided and co-habited at village Suin illaqua Shumali Tehsil Karsog from 8.12.1998 to 10.12.1998. It is further pleaded that Khushal Singh died on 16.12.1998 and her daughter minor namely Santosh was born on 28.12.1998 twelve days after the death of Khushal Singh out of the wedlock of Khushal Singh and Soma Devi. It is further pleaded defendants No. 1 and 2 are sons of deceased Khushal Singh born from his pre deceased wife and defendants No. 3 and 4 are sons of Sada Ram who is brother of Khushal Singh and proforma defendant No.5 Smt. Ram Dei is the daughter of Sada Ram. It is further pleaded that no relief is claimed against proforma defendants No. 3 to 5. It is further pleaded that Khushal Singh died on 16.12.1998 leaving behind plaintiffs along with defendants No. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. It is further pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with revenue staff got sanction illegal mutation of succession in their favour vide mutation No. 11 dated 7.3.1991. It is further pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 Soma Devi is recorded as wife of Khushal Singh and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are recorded as daughters of Khushal Singh in family register of pargana Panchayat. It is further pleaded that plaintiff No.1 be declared as widow and other plaintiffs be declared as daughters of deceased Khushal Singh and mutation No.11 dated 7.3.1991 be declared as null and void. It is further pleaded that it be declared that plaintiffs are legally entitled to succeed the estate of deceased Khushal Singh.

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that suit is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file present suit. It is further pleaded that suit in the present form is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that in fact Khushal Singh had married with Smt. Jiwanu who died about 12 years back. It is further pleaded that contesting defendants are the sons of deceased Khushal Singh and they are entitled to inherit the property. It is further pleaded that Khushal Singh died on 18.12.1988 and not died on 16.12.1998. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file present suit. Plaintiffs also filed replication. As per pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court on dated 10.3.2000 and 06.04.2000:

1. Whether plaintiff Soma Devi is widow and plaintiff Santosh and Savitri Devi are daughters of deceased Khushal Singh if so its effect? …OPP

2. Whether the mutation No.11 of dated 7.3.1991 is null and void as alleged? …OPP

3. In case issues No.1