Ratio(s) Decidendi-Long cohabitation is acknowledgment of legitimacy of children.

Suit in forma pauperis for partition of plaint properties and for allotment of 1/8th share to the plaintiff. Fathima Bi, the plaintiff, and Abbas Bi Animal, the fifth defendant, are the daughters of one Moosa Bi Ammal, who died in 1955. Dawood Bi Ammal, the fourth defendant, is the elder sister of Moosa Bi, and her children are defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff’s children are defendants 6 to 8. The ninth defendant is the husband of the third defendant. The tenth defendant is said to be interested in one of the plaint items as a tenant. The case of the plaintiff is that her mother Moosa Bi was the second wife of Abdul Rahman, the first wife being the fourth defendant, that she and the fifth defendant Abbas Bi, being the daughters of Abdul Rahman by his second wife Moosa Bi, are each entitled to 1/8th share in the estate of Abdul Rahman, who died in January, 1958. On 2nd May, 1958, the plaintiff executed a registered (feed of release under Exhibit P-14 in favour of defendants 1 to 4 relinquishing all her rights in the estate of Abdul Rahman. On the same date, defendants 1 to 4 executed a settlement deed Exhibit P-15 in favour of defendants, 6 to 8, children of the plaintiff, settling upon them one of the properties of Abdul Rahman. The plaintiff questions these transactions. According to her, the release deed was brought about by defendants 1 to 4, with a view to deprive her of her legitimate share in her father’s estate making false recitals in the document. Her contention is that being an illiterate and helpless lady and suffering from penury, she was prevailed upon to execute the document by exercising undue influence and committing fraud and by keeping her in darkness about the contents. Her contention is that the said deed is void and inoperative and cannot affect her title. It is also her contention that the settlement deed was a part of the fraud committed by defendants 1 to 4, and this is also null and void. She wants a declaration that the release deed is void and inoperative and prays that a partition may be effected of all the properties and that 1/8th share may be alloted to her.

2. The fifth defendant, sister of the plaintiff, supported the plaintiff and filed a written statement. She also had executed a deed of release on 20th February, 1969, Exhibit P-17 in favour of defendants 1 to 4 just as the plaintiff had executed Exhibit P-14 and obtained a deed of settlement from the second defendant under Exhibit P-18 on the same date. In her written statement she questioned these documents contending that they were brought about by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. But she has compromised the suit with defendants 1 to 4 and does not press her defence.

3. The third defendant, and her husband, the ninth defendant, filed written statements stating that the plaintiff and the fifth defendant ate the daughters of their father Abdul Rahman by his second wife Moosa Bi and conceding a share in her father’s estate. They also made certain allegations about the release deed executed by the third defendant in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 4. In substance, they supported the case of the plaintiff. Ultimately they also did not press their contentions, but were content to enter into a compromise with defendants 1, 2 and 4.

4. The suit was contested only by defendants 1, 2 and 4. Their contention is that the plaintiff and the fifth defendant were not the daughters of Abdul Rahman, that Moosa Bi, mother of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant, had already been married by another person, and that even if the plaintiff and the fifth defendant had been born to Abdul Rahman, they are only children born out of adulterous intercourse and cannot claim right of inheritance in the estate of Abdul Rahman. Their further contention is that realising their status, the plaintiff and the fifth defendant executed release deeds and were content to take some properties which these defendants gave, and that on account of these transactions