The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The death-cum-terminal benefits lying in the hands of Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager, Chennai (the third respondent herein/4th defendant in the original suit), the amount lying in the hands of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, Thanjavur (4th respondent herein/5th defendant in the original suit) on two insurance policies taken on the life of late Thyagarajan, the father of the appellant herein/plaintiff and an extent of 0.29.0 hectares (equivalent to 72 cents) of wet land comprised in R.S.No.56/8 of Visalur Village, Nannilam Taluk are the subject matters of the suit regarding which, the appellant/plaintiff claimed the relief of partition. He claimed that he was entitled to half share in the amounts shown as item 1 to 3 in the description of properties and 1/3rd share in the landed property described in the plaint schedule.

2. The claim was made on the basis that the appellant herein/plaintiff was the only legitimate son born to late Thyagarajan; that the other legal heirs left by him was the first defendant, the mother of late Thyagarajan; that there was only an illicit intimacy between late Thyagarajan and Rajeswari, the first respondent herein/second defendant in the original suit; that no marriage took place between them and that the second respondent/third defendant was not the son of Thyagarajan born out of lawful wedlock or out of void/voidable marriage. On that basis alone, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that he and his grandmother, namely the first defendant in the original suit alone were entitled to half share each in the three amounts mentioned in items 1 to 3 of the description of properties. However it is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the landed property described in the plaint schedule was purchased by late Thyagarajan with his own funds in the name of the second respondent herein/third defendant and that the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the landed property described in the plaint schedule. Thus the appellant/plaintiff laid the suit praying for the relief of partition claiming half share in the amounts lying with the respondents 3 and 4 herein/defendants 4 and 5 and 1/3rd share in the landed property described in the plaint schedule.

3. The suit was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 2 and 3 denying the plaint allegation that late Thyagarajan did not marry the first respondent/second defendant Rajeswari and that the second respondent herein/third defendant was not the son of Thyagarajan born out of lawful wedlock or out of void/voidable marriage. On the other hand, it was contended that after the death of the first wife of late Thyagarajan, he married the first respondent herein/second defendant whereupon, they lived together as husband and wife at a number of places in the Railway quarters provided to late Thyagarajan, as he was employed in the Southern Railway as a Gate Keeper; that out of such lawful wedlock, the second respondent herein/third defendant was born to them and that thus the second respondent/third defendant was the legitimate son of late Thyagarajan. Thus the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 3 claim that they also became entitled to succeed to the properties of late Thyagarajan along with the appellant herein/plaintiff and the first defendant in the original suit, as the legal heirs of late Thyagarajan and thus the appellant herein/plaintiff, first defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 1 to 3 were entitled to equal shares in the amounts lying in the hands of the third and fourth respondents herein/4th and 5th defendants, who were the employer and insurer of late Thyagarajan. However, they claimed that the landed property described in the plaint schedule was purchased by the first respondent herein/second defendant with her own funds provided by her mother; that hen