The legitimacy of a child born from a void marriage entitles them to inheritance rights in the father's property under the Hindu Marriage Act, reaffirmed through evidence and presumption of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

1. The 6th & 7th defendants, who are the purchasers of the suit property from the second defendant, are the appellants in this appeal. Since the 7th defendant died, his legal heirs are brought on record as appellants 2 to 5 herein. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

2. This Second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2008 in AS.No.53 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Juge, (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1996 in OS.No.372 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Ariyalur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

The brief facts, which gave rise to the present Second Appeal, are as follows:

4. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Singaram born through his 3rd wife Dhanabackiyam, who is the first defendant. Singaram had two brothers, Karuppaiah and Kaliyaperumal, and the brothers partitioned the family properties and they have been in enjoyment of their respective shares. Singaram, the plaintiff's father, got the suit properties through partition and also by purchase. Plaintiff's father Singaram married Alagammal and they did not have any child in their matrimonial life. As the second defendant Alagammal brought a bad reputation to the plaintiff's father, his father divorced the second defendant before the Panchayat on 01.08.1962, as per the customary practise of the caste and also paid money, gold and properties in view of the divorce.

5. Further according to the plaintiff, his mother Dhanabackiyam married Karuppaiah, and they had two children, Mariyayee a daughter and Ramasamy a son. After the death of Karuppaiah, the plaintiff's mother Dhanabackiyam, being the widow married Singaram on 01.08.1966 which was a Self Respect Marriage. One Angamuthu participated and performed the self- respect marriage by giving thali. Out of the marriage, Sampath, the brother of the plaintiff, was born, but later he died. Thereafter, the plaintiff was born as the second son. Singaram died on 19.10.1973, and pursuant to his death, the plaintiff, as his son, inherited the property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by paying the taxes and carrying on cultivation.

6. Further according to the plaintiff, Singaram died on 19.10.1973 and all the last rights were performed by the plaintiff and his mother, the first defendant. The second defendant joining hands with the defendants 3 to 5, by creating fabricated document, started to interfere in the suit properties. As such, the plaintiff had come with the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative to grant a preliminary decree for 1/3rd share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The defendants resisted the suit property by filing the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, there was a litigation between the first defendant and the second defendant in OS.No.1696/1974, wherein the first defendant set up the claim based on adoption, stating that late Singaram had adopted minor Ramasamy, who is the son of Karuppiah and claimed certain share in the properties of Singaram. In that suit, neither the divorce of the second defendant, nor the self respect marriage with the first defendant was alleged or whispered, which will show that the present claim made by the plaintiff is false.

8. In the earlier suit, the title and possession of the second defendant over the suit properties were declared and the same w