The judgment established that a son born through the second marriage is a legitimate son only for the purpose of claiming a share in the father's property and is not entitled to claim any share in the ancestral property of the father.

1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.199 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, are the appellants.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follow :-

The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant. The marriage between the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff Rajammal, took place in the month of Vaikasi of the year 1959 and the first defendant was living along with the first plaintiff's mother at the residence of the plaintiff's mother at Mela Goundan Valasu. The first defendant insisted that the property in the name of the plaintiff's grand-mother should be settled on him and that was not accepted by the plaintiff's grand-mother Chinnakkal. Therefore, misunderstanding arose between the first defendant and his mother-in-law and enraged by the behaviour of the first defendant, the mother-in-law of the first defendant, namely Chinnakkal sold the half share of her property to one Komara Goundar. Enraged by the same, the first defendant left the family in October 1959. Thereafter, the plaintiff's mother got re-conveyance of the half share from Komara Gounder and she became the absolute owner of the property. The first defendant neglected the mother of the plaintiff and contracted illegal 2nd marriage in the year 1962. The defendants 2 and 3 are the children born to the first defendant through the second wife. The plaintiff's mother was living with her mother and she was not having any issue at that time and therefore, she executed a Will on 14.09.1976 in favour of her uncle and his children in respect of the properties owned by her. On coming to know the same, the first defendant approached the mother of the plaintiff and compromised to live with her and the mother of the plaintiff also insisted the first defendant to live with him as husband and wife and in the year 1977, the plaintiff was born. When the plaintiff was conceived the first defendant insisted the mother of the plaintiff to abort the child stating that he was having two male children through his second wife and that was not accepted by the plaintiff's mother and therefore, the first defendant left the plaintiff's mother and started to live with the second wife. On 30.02.1978, the plaintiff was born and the first defendant never visited the plaintiff or her mother and the plaintiff approached the first defendant and claimed share in the ancestral properties in the hands of the first defendant and the first defendant was not prepared to give half share in the properties. It is stated that as per Hindu Succession Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the ancestral property in the hands of the first defendant. As the first defendant refused to give the same, the plaintiff sent a notice on 06.08.1993 and that was replied by the first defendant making untenable allegations.

4. In the reply notice, it is contended by the first defendant that there was a partition on 09.09.1977 between himself and the defendants 2 and 3 and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any partition and also mesne profit. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 cannot claim any right over the properties as the properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of the first defendant and the defendants 2 and 3 are the illegitimate children born to the 2nd wife during the subsistence of the first marriage and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to half share and for that purpose, the suit was filed.

5. The first defendant filed a statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant. It is stated that the first defendant married the second wife with the consent of the first wife Rajammal, as Rajammal was not having any children through the first defendant and after marring the second wife, both of them lived together in the same house and the defendants 2 and 3 were born and on 11.01.1976, the first wife Rajammal gifted certain pro