Children born to a void marriage are entitled to property shares under the Hindu Marriage Act, despite the marriage's invalidity.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

The unsuccessful defendants 7 and 9 are the appellants herein.

2. The 1^st respondent, his deceased mother-R.Lakshmi Kutty and respondents 2 and 3 have filed a suit for partition against the appellants and other respondents. Pending suit, R.Lakshmi Kutty died and the respondents 1 to 3 were recorded as her legal representatives. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court by granting 10/36 share in favour of the 1^st respondent/2^nd plaintiff, 1/36 share in favour of 3^rd respondent. The suit was dismissed in respect of 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants have come before this Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit.

4. As per the plaint averment, the deceased 1^st plaintiff-R.Lakshmi Kutty was the second wife of deceased 1^st defendant-Narayanan Nambiar. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are his sons and daughter. The 3^rd plaintiff was born to 1^st plaintiff through her 1^st husband. The plaintiffs 2 and 4 were born to her through 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant is the 1^st wife of deceased 1^st defendant. The defendants 3 to 6 are daughters of defendants 1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that the defendants 1 and 2 also had pre-deceased sons Velayutham and Chandran. The defendants 7 to 10 are wife and children of said Velayutham. The defendants 11 to 14 are wife and children of said Chandran.

5. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the 1^st plaintiff-R.Lakshmi Kutty got married to 1^st defendant in the year 1950 as his second wife. After marriage, the 1^st plaintiff joined 1^st defendant and lived in matrimonial house in Namakkal. During October-1951, the 1^st plaintiff got employment as Maternity Assistant in Municipal Hospital in Rasipuram. During weekends and holidays, the 1^st plaintiff would go over to Namakkal and reside with defendants 1 and 2. The 1^st plaintiff handed over her entire savings and salary to her husband-1^st defendant. The 2^nd plaintiff acquired B.Sc., degree and also passed Higher Grade in English and Tamil Typewriting. At the instance of 1^st defendant, he discontinued his studies and helped him in running a hotel business at D.No.155, Thillai Puram Main Road, Namakkal. The 2^nd plaintiff also runs a Job typing center in a small portion in the hotel premises and thus, contributed to the wealth of the family. From the joint earnings of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 1^st defendant, several properties were acquired for the benefit of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 and 2 and deceased Velayutham and Chandran. The documents were taken in the name of 2^nd Plaintiff, Velayutham, Chandran and 2^nd defendant. Since the 1^st defendant made representation that building in D.No.154, Thillaipuram Main Road, Namakkal could be treated as exclusive property of 2^nd plaintiff, he executed a Release Deed in favour of the Velayutham and Chandran in respect of property in Item No.7 (suit ‘B’ schedule). A portion of the said property was also sold to 2^nd plaintiff. After death of Velayutham and Chandran, the 1^st defendant and 2^nd defendant filed a collusive suit against the other defendants for partition and obtained a collusive decree and the same would not bind the plaintiffs. Since Suit 'A' schedule and 'C' schedule properties were purchased out of joint contribution made by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the suit was laid for partition.

6. The appellants/defendants 7 and 9 filed a written statement denying the factum of marriage between 1^st plaintiff and 1^st defendant. They also contended that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not members of their joint family. It was also stated that the properties purchase