The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. She has filed the suit for partition contending that the first defendant is her father, the second defendant is the concubine of the first defendant and the third defendant was born to her father-D1 through D-2-concubine. It is alleged by her that the third defendant is an illegitimate child. The suit properties are ancestral agricultural properties inh7erited by the first defendant, being Kartha of the joint family and that as the ancestral properties are not in dispute, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief of partition on the ancestral properties. It is also further contended that the plaintiff was born to the first defendant through Ranganayaki, who is alleged to be the wife of the first defendant. The plaintiff got married in September 1989 and became co-parcener to the properties and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition.

2. The defendants, who are the respondents herein, took a stand that the appellant/plaintiff had no inclination to give a share of her properties to the defendants, as they are separate properties and the plaintiff was born out of the illegal relationship between Ranganayaki and A