IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a child born out of a void marriage is not entitled to claim partition of the joint family properties during the lifetime of the parent but may be entitled to a share in the self-acquired properties of the parent after their death.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 1999 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District judge, Nizamabad, dated 22.06.2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the suit schedule properties and for allotment of 1/3rd share in her favour and for future mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of 1/3rd share.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to in terms of their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1. The defendant No. 1 married one Lingu Bai. Sometime after the marriage, as Lingu Bai fell sick, the defendant No. 1 married Rajamani, who is none other than the sister of Lingu Bai. Defendant No. 2 is the son born to defendant No. 1 through the first wife, Lingu Bai. The plaintiff is the daughter born to defendant No. 1 through the second wife, Rajamani. The suit schedule properties i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.6.24 guntas in Nizamabad Shivar and two houses at Kotagally, Nizamabad, described as various items of suit schedule A & B properties, are the ancestral immovable properties succeeded by the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, she being the unmarried daughter of defendant No. 1, is in joint possession and coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family of defendant No. 1 and therefore, she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. In spite of the demand made by the plaintiff through her mother for partition of the suit schedule properties and for delivery of her share, the defendant No. 1 postponed the same on one pretext or the other, as such, the plaintiff approached the defendant No. 1, along with elders, on 14.02.1999 and demanded for partition of the properties, but the defendant No. 1 refused for the partition of the properties. Hence, she laid the suit for partition and separation possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.

4. Contesting the suit, defendant No. 1 filed a written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff is not a coparcener and she is not entitled to seek partition or a share in the suit schedule properties. According to him, except Schedule-B properties and land admeasuring Ac.0.11 ½ guntas in Sy. No. 957/AU part of item No. 8 of Schedule-A property, he does not possess any of the properties as shown in the suit schedule properties. He disposed of item No. 3 of Schedule-A in the year 1997 to clear off the debts borrowed for the maintenance of the plaintiff and her mother, Rajamani. Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 9 of the Schedule-A properties are not owned by him. Even the C.T. roofed house bearing No. 3-5-424/2 is in dilapidated condition. Much prior to 1986 he was not in talking terms with the plaintiff and her mother, Rajamani and therefore, the question of demand by the plaintiff seeking partition of the suit schedule properties does not arise. Item No. 6 of Schedule-A property in Sy. No. 889 belongs to defendant No. 2 exclusively and the defendant No. 1 has got no right over the same. The written statement filed by defendant No. 2 is in similar lines with that of defendant No.1. According to him, as the plaintiff is illegitimate child of defendant No. 1, her claim for partition should be confined to the self-acquired properties of defendant No. 1 and it should not extend to the ancestral properties.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of properties of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties as coparcener?

ii. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced.

7. Considering the oral and doc