The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Mohammedan Law to determine the validity of the marriage and the legitimacy of the children, emphasizing the legal essentials of a valid Mohammedan marriage, the distinction between void and irregular marriage, the effects of an irregular marriage, and the presumption of marriage under Mohammedan Law.

1. The defendants 2 to 9 are the appellants. The respondents filed the suit in O.S. No.91 of 2004 claiming 9/20 share in the properties belonged to Mohammed Haneefa and filed the suit for partition. The suit was dismissed and the appeal filed in A.S. No.78 of 2009 was allowed and hence the Second Appeal is filed by the defendants 2 to 9.

2. The case of the respondents was that the suit properties belonged Mohammed Haneefa and he was having the relationship with the 1st plaintiff/ 1st respondent and that matter was reported to the Zamath of Ulundurpet. At the instance of Zamath the 1st plaintiff who was a Hindu converted into Islam and married Mohammed Haneefa. The deceased 1st defendant was the first wife and she was also aware of the marriage of the 1st respondent with her husband Mohammed Haneefa and the respondents 2 and 3 were born to Mohammed Haneefa and they were also acknowledged by him as his children and the appellants herein are the children of Mohammed Haneefa through the first wife the deceased 1st defendant and therefore the respondents are entitled to 9/20 share in the properties.

3. The appellants contested the suit stating that the 1st respondent was not the wife of Mohammed Haneefa and no marriage took place between them as alleged by the 1st respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 though born to the 1st respondent and Mohammed Haneefa, they cannot be considered as the legitimate children of Mohammed Haneefa and therefore they are not entitled to claim any share in the properties. It was further contended that the 2nd defendant namely the 1st appellant that he has purchased Items 2, to 5 and 7 of properties in his own name and he is the owner of the properties and Mohammed Haneefa had no right over the properties.

4. The trial Court held that the 1st respondent/ 1st plaintiff failed to prove her marriage with Mohammed Haneefa and the Document Ex. X1 would prove that she was not married to Mohammed Haneefa and the respondents 2 and 3 were not born during the subsistence of the valid marriage and in Exs.B4 and B5, the 1st respondent was described only as a concubine of Mohammed Haneefa and therefore the respondents/ plaintiffs are not entitled to any share.

5. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that the 1st respondent herein was the wife of Mohammed Haneefa and the 1st respondent and Mohammed Haneefa lived together as husband and wife for a long period of time and the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them and the deceased Mohammed Haneefa acknowledged the respondents 2 and 3 as his own children and those were evidenced by Exs.A3 to A9 and therefore by reason of acknowledgment of paternityby the father Mohammed Haneefa, the respondent 2 and 3 are the legitimate children of Mohammed Haneefa and by reason of long cohabitation the marriage between Mohammed Haneefa and the 1st respondent can be presumed and Exs. B1 and B2 would also prove the properties were purchased in the name of Mohammed Haneefa and even though in Ex.B3 the joint patta in the name of the 1st appellant/ 2nd defendant is mentioned that will not give any right and declared that the respondents are entitled to claim 9/20 share in the properties of Mohammed Haneefa and passed preliminary decree.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

(1) Whether the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated in holding that the 1st plaintiff converted to Islam and married Mohammed Haneefa without considering properly the admission of the 1st plaintiff in the Exhibits particularly Exs.B4, B5, B6 and X1 ?

(2) Whether in any event the Lower Appellate Court erred in granting 9/20 share to the plaintiffs without considering the rules applicable to Muslims relating to Law of Inheritance?

(3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in granting decree in respect of items 2 to 5 and 7 without considering the entitlement of the same by the 2nddefendant?