Children born from a void or voidable marriage are entitled to inherit their father's property under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but such rights are limited to the properties of the parents only.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.57 of 1985 dated 212. 1989 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengleput. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Tersely and briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be narrated thus;

The deceased V.P. Venkatesan, had two wives namely Jayammal, the first defendant herein and one Thulukkanammal. Through his first wife he had one son the second defendant and two daughters, the third and the fourth defendants. Through his second wife he had five children namely the plaintiffs 1 and 5 his sons and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 his daughters. In fact the marriage of V.P.Venkatesan with Thulukkanammal took place in the year 1955 in Syuamariyathai form in Singaperumal Koil in the presence of the villagers. From that time onwards V.P. Venkatesan and Thulukkanammal started living together till his death on 26.09.1985. The properties described in the schedule of the plaint belong to the joint family of V.P. Venkatesan and his sons. Some of those properties are ancestral properties which V.P. Venkatesan got in a partition his brothers earlier. The rest of the properties are his self-acquired properties. V.P. Venkatesan was running a touring Cinema theatre namely "Kalaichelvei Talkies" and it was named after the fourth plaintiff. By running the cinema theatre, he earned substantial amount and purchased properties. The defendants 1 and 2 sold item number 15 in favour of the fifth and sixth defendants and hence they were added as parties. The plaintiffs since they happened to be the children of V.P. Venkatesan, through his second wife, as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, they are entitled to claim the shares. The said

V.P. Venkatesan died on 26.09.1985, whereupon the defendants developed hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for partition is filed with the following prayer;

1) directing a partition of the suit items 1 to 6 into 36 equal shares and allotment of 23 such shares to the plaintiffs;

2) directing the partition of plaint items 7 to 15 into 9 equal shares and allotment of 5 such shares to the plaintiffs;

3) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs future costs; and

4) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their cost of the suit.

3. Per contra, gainsaying and denying, contradicting and impugning the allegations/averments in the plaint, the first defendant filed the written statement which was certified by the other defendants. The quintessence of it would run thus;

No marriage between V.P. Venkatesan and Thulukkanammal took place in the year 1955 in any form much less in "Suyamariyathai" form. The plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and lay claim for any share in the suit properties. The first defendant did not remove movables worth Rs.35,600/-. V.P. Venkatesan had illicit relationship with Thulukkanammal, who was wife of one Srinivasan and hence no marriage could have taken place between V.P. Venkatesan and Thulukkanammal and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit properties. In fact, Thulukkanammal and the first plaintiff removed 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.5,000/- from the deceased V.P. Venkatesan. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. The other defendants adopted the written statement of the first defendant.

4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the first plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with Thulukkanammal, the second wife of V.P. Venkatesan and Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 were marked. The first defendant examined herself as DW1 along with her witness Rajaveni Ammal and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were marked. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for and a preliminary decree was also passed.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and preliminary decr