The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sec.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act to establish the presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children born out of such wedlock, influencing the decision to grant a preliminary decree for partition in favor of the 2nd Plaintiff.

This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.12/2005 dated 24. 2006 reversing Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.279/2000 dated 25.01.2005 and thereby passing Preliminary decree for partition of 2nd Plaintiffs 1/4th share in the suit properties as son of late Sadasiva Gounder.

2. Plaintiffs and Defendant claim as legal heirs of deceased Sadasiva Gounder and they

are related as under:-

Sadasiva Gounder[Died in1979]

|

| | |

=Unnamalai Ammal = Chinna Ammal = Muniammal[P1]

1st wife [died in 1988] 2nd wife [died-issueless] [3rd wife]

| |

Kuppan (Son) Dhanasekaran(Son)

[Appellant-Defendant] [2nd Respondent-2nd Plaintiff]

Case of Plaintiffs is that suit properties belonged to Sadasiva Gounder and he died intestate in 1979. According to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs and Defendant as legal heirs of Sadasiva Gounder are entitled to succeed to the suit properties. At the time of death of Sadasiva Gounder, 2nd Plaintiff was aged 13 years. After the death of Sadasiva Gounder, Defendant was maintaining family properties as Kartha of joint family. Plaintiffs and Defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and

inspite of repeated demands, Defendant has not effected partition. After issuing pre-suit notice, Plaintiffs filed suit for partition of their half share in the suit properties.

3. Resisting the suit, Defendant filed written statement denying 1st Plaintiff as the wife of Sadasiva Gounder. Status of 2nd Plaintiff has legal heir of Sadasiva Gounder is also denied. According to Defendant, 1st Plaintiff was the wife of one Srinivasa Pillai, son of Subbaraya Pillai and there was no valid marriage solemnized between 1st Plaintiff and Sadasiva Gounder and therefore, Plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit properties. Since Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to give something to Plaintiffs, after exchange of notices Defendant gave 0.78 acres of land and another 0.07 cents in S.No.142/1A and 1/9th share in the Well Electric Motor and Pumpset in S.No.152/A. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs are given 0.75 acres of land and share in the Well only on humanitarian grounds and not any legal grounds and Patta was also transferred in the name of Plaintiffs. Since, there was no valid marriage between Sadasiva Gounder and 1st Plaintiff, Plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit properties.

4. On the above pleadings, eight Issues and two additional Issues were framed. On the side of Plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of Defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B16 were marked.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that Plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove solemnization of marriage of 1st Plaintiff with Sadasiva Gounder. Trial Court further held that since marriage was not proved, 2nd Plaintiff cannot be held to be a legitimate son of Sadasiva Gounder and not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties. It was further held that based on Ex.A4 sale deed, it cannot be concluded that 2nd Plaintiff is the son of Sadasiva Gounder and on those findings, trial Court dismissed Plaintiffs suit.

6. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, Plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.12/2005 before District Court, Tiruvannamalai. Referring to Ex.A5 sale deed [22.07.1974] wherein 1st Plaintiff Muniammal has been described as wife of Sadasiva Gounder, lower Appellate Court held that Ex.A5 sale deed would show that 1st Plaintiff was treated as wife of Sadasiva Gounder by Sadasiva Gounder himself. Referring to Ex.A3 [School Transfer certificate of 2nd Plaintiff] and Ex.A4 sale deed [15. 1986] wherein 2nd Plaintiff has been described as son of Sadasiva Gounder, lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of trial Court and allowed the Appeal and passed preliminary decree for partition of 1/4th share infavour of 2nd Plaintiff.

7. Aggrieved by preliminary decree for partition passed, Defendant filed