The main legal point established is the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of The Evidence Act, which requires strong evidence to rebut. The court also emphasized the need to consider the interests of minors and the allowance for amendment of the plaint schedule to ensure substantial justice.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 94/1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/4-th share and for mesne profits.

2. Heard Mr. V. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 & 5. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the minor plaintiff that he is the son of the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 are his grandfather and grandmother. Defendants 4 and 5 are the alienees of some of the suit items. The first defendant married Kamakkal. Due to the lawful wedlock between the first defendant and Kamakkal, the plaintiff and his four sisters were born. On instigation of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiffs mother and sisters were driven out of the matrimonial home. The plaintiffs mother instituted O.S. No. 414/1973 for maintenance against the first defendant. The said suit was decreed granting the decree for maintenance and as per the decree properties were given to the mother, Kamakkal and minor daughters for their maintenance and they are in possession of the same. When the maintenance suit was pending the plaintiff herein was in the womb of his mother, Kamakkal. The plaintiff is the legitimate son of the first defendant and Kamakkal. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the extensive lands measuring 25 acres of Nanja with five wells, two wells fitted with electric connection besides number of houses. The properties are ancestral properties and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4-th share in the entire suit properties as a coparcener. Hence the suit for partition of his 1/4-th share.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement pleading that when the earlier suit O.S. No. 414/73 was pending, Kamakkal was pregnant and she had given birth to a female child by name Jaya and it is not correct to state that the plaintiff was in his mothers womb. Kamakkal left the matrimonial house during 1972 with three children and thereafter there had been no relationship between Kamakkal and the first defendant. There was a compromise between Kamakkal and the first defendant in the maintenance suit during the year 1977. In the light of the said compromise, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share. The plaintiff was not born to the first defendant and the plaintiff is not the first defendants son. The plaintiff was born to Kamakkal and her sisters husband. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share. The first defendant had married one, Ponnammal, and through her he has two sons, Srinivasan and Kannan and a daughter Hamsavalli. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the said Srinivasan and Kannan, without prejudice and even assuming the palintiff is entitled to a share he will not be entitled to 1/4-th share but he will be entitled to only 1/8-th share. The suit items 1 to 25 do not belong to the family. The suit items 1 to 3 are ancestral properties and as per the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 414/73, they are in enjoyment of Kamakkal for her life and her three daughters. The suit items 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 21 are the separate properties of the 2nd defendant which items the 2nd defendant on 3.2.1971, 20.5.72, 26.5.72 and 10.5.80 had alienated for valid consideration to Ramasamy Gounder and Amman @ Veerathimammal, who are in possession of the same. The alienees are necesary parties. Apart from that the family is in-debted and these debts are binding on the family. The plaintiff had boosted the income from the joint family properties. The first defendant had further pleaded that he is entitled to one well in the particular survey number and item No. 1 of the suit property do not belong to the joint family.

5. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement a