N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the preliminary decree passed in respect of item Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 declaring the plaintiffs are entitled to 6/8th share, the defendants 1 and 2 filed the appeal in A.S.No.926 of 1992. Similarly, aggrieved over the preliminary decree in respect of 3rd item of the property namely deposit in the bank, the bank/3rd defendant has filed the appeal A.S.No.986 of 1993.

2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, dated 13.10.1992 in O.S.No.95 of 1989 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, we decide to dispose of both the appeals in a common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows:-

The plaintiffs are children of one Durairaj, born through their mother Kamalambal. Though the first defendant married Durairaj in the year 1953, the female child born to her died immediately. Thereafter, in the year 1957, the second defendant herein was born to Durairaj and first defendant. Since both the children born to first defendant happened to be female children and after that, the first defendant did not conceive for some time, late Durairaj, who was the Zamindar of Pappanadu, wanted to have a male child. Hence, he thought of going for a 2nd marriage. Accordingly, the said Durairaj married Kamalambal as the second wife on 05.06.1960 at 30, Ganapathy Nagar, Thanjavur in the presence of relation of Kamalambal and Durairaj. The said Kamalambal was already living along with her mother, who was managing the house hold work of the said Durairaj. Accordingly, the marriage was fixed with Kamalambal and soleminised on 05.06.1960 by exchanging garlands and Durairaj also tied thali in the presence of R.Nallamuthu Nattar of Marudhur, K.Rajagopal Nattar of Marudhur, Rajarathinam of Tiruchy and others. The first defendant is always residing at Abraham Panditham Road, Thanjavur. After the marriage with Kamalambal, Durairaj was living with her at 30, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Ganapathi Nagar, Thanjavur. Out of the wedlock, plaintiffs were born to Durairaj and Kamalambal. In all relevant records, the plaintiffs have shown as children of Durairaj. After the marriage of the second defendant which took place in the year 1983, as the same was performed against the wishes of Durairaj, the said Durairaj considering the attitude of the first defendant, wanted to settle the house at 30, Ganapathi Nagar in favour of Kamalambal. Since bigamy was an offence, at the instance of Durairaj in the above settlement, Kamalambal was not described as wife of Durairaj, even though there was a marriage between them and Durairaj permanently stayed with Kamalambal till his death. Even during his life time, the 3rd plaintiff was in possession and management of the theatre, namely Raja Kalaiyarangam, Thanjavur. Hence, the plaintiffs being the children of Durairaj, entitled to 6/8th share in the estate left by Durairaj. Hence, the above suit.

4. The defendants 1 and 2, wife and daughter of Durairaj, filed a written statement denying the marriage between Durairaj and Kamalambal on 05.06.1960. It is the contention of the defendants that Durairaj, was very weak towards sexual pleasure and was maintaining a harem shamelessly without a feeling of abasement. Kamalambal appears to have exploited him taking advantage of his weakness and she was also exercising influence and undue influence on him, infact, Kamalambal was kept as concubine and she was the servant maid in the house. Because of the influence and improper advice of Kamalambal, there was some love loss in the family. Late Durairaj was a puppet in the hands of Kamalambal and her children and he had lost his independent thinking and balance. He was behaving in a questionable manner. Kamalambal was never treated or considered or given the status of wife by Late Durairaj at any point of time. She was never recognized as wife of Durairaj. She was not esteemed