Children born as Hindus not barred from right of inheritance.

1. The unsuccessful defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.118 of 1988, the unsuccessful D-2 and D-3 in O.S.No.500 of 1988 and the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.138 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif No. Thiruvannamalai, preferred A.S.No.94 of 1998, A.S.No.95 of 1998 and A.S.No.93 of 1998 respectively and all the three appeals were dismissed on 25.3.1999 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and aggrieved against this, they have come forward with the present second appeals.

2. Thecase in brief for disposal of all the appeals is as follows:

The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 118 of 1998 filed a suit for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Schedule mentioned property originally belonged to D-l. The adjoined house on the eastern side bearing door No. 13-A originally constituted one single house bearing door No. 13. D-l had 2 sons namely Kuppusamy and Subramani (D-2). The 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Kuppusamy and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born to them out of the wedlock. Even during the lifetime of Kuppusamy and Subramani, there was family arrangement since Kuppusamy married the first plaintiff belonging to a different community. The house property was divided into 2 equal shares and the eastern half to the 2nd defendant and they were also put in possession of their respective shares and in fact a partition wall was also put up in 1981. Subsequently, the assessment of the property for the western half bearing door No.l2-A was assessed in the name of Kuppusamy and the eastern half bearing door No. 13 was assessed in the name of D-2. Similarly, separate demand notices were sent for electricity as well as water charges. D-l was cordially living with each one of his sons and daughters. Kuppusamy died interstate on 2.2.1985 and on his death the plaintiffs succeeded to the property detailed in the schedule. D-l started taking hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs after the death of Kuppusamy. D-2 instigated D-l to execute a settlement deed in favour of his minor children D-3 and D-4 and accordingly D-l who had no manner of right, interest or title over the suit property executed a settlement deed in favour of D-3 and D-4 and it is not valid and binding. The defendants are openly asserting that the plaintiffs have no title in the property and hence, the suit was filed.

3. The defendants resisted the suit and disputed the family arrangement. The relationship of D-1 with his sons are admitted. There was no valid marriage between the first plaintiff and Kuppusamy and as such she is not the legally wedded wife. The suit property is the separated and self-acquired property of D-l and his sons had no right. D-l never divided the house property into 2 halves and did not allot any property either to Kuppusamy or to D-2. He also did not part with the possession of the property. D-l has been separately living in the house till 1981 and his son was living in a different house. Similarly, D-2 was employed outside as the house became dilapidated, D-l wanted to effect repairs and at that time Kuppusamy approached D-1 that he would supervise the repair work and accordingly he was permitted to look after the repairs. In the mean time, D-l became sick and got himself admitted in the Government Hospital, Madras for a period of 4 months and after repair Kuppusamy wanted to occupy the house as a tenant and taking pity on him, D-1 permitted him to occupy a portion of the house on a monthly rent of Rs.100. Taking advantage of this, it appears that Kuppusamy had changed the Municipal Registry in his name as well as the water taxes. The electricity service still stand in the name of D-l. D-l subsequently settled the suit property and other properties in favour of his grandsons D-3 and D-4 and registered a settlement deed on 27.11.1987 and put D-2 in possessi