Illegitimate children of a relationship without marriage lack inheritance rights under Hindu succession laws.

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant / defendant was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law: -
"Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that the defendant / appellant - Rameshwar Prasad was an illegitimate child of deceased Kanhaiyalal Tiwari and the finding in this regard is perverse?"
(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court).

2. The plaintiffs / respondents herein filed a suit for declaration of title and possession stating inter alia that plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of late Shri Kanhaiyalal and plaintiff No. 2 is the son of late Shri Kanhaiyalal and the suit property was inherited by late Shri Kanhaiyalal from his grandfather. Shri Kanhaiyalal died in the year 1965 and after his death, they have inherited the suit property. Defendant, who is the son of Dukhani Bai out of illicit relationship with late Shri Kanhaiyalai, had got his name mutated in the revenue records. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has no right and title over the suit property, as such, decree for declaration and possession be granted in their favour.

3. The defendant filed his written statement controverting the allegations made in the plaint stating inter alia that he is son of late Shri Kanhaiyalai out of his relationship with Dukhani Bai, he has right and title over the suit property and therefore the suit be dismissed with cost(s).

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit holding that no marriage was solemnized between Dukhani Bai and late Shri Kanhaiyalai, as such, the defendant being an illegitimate child is not entitled to inherit the property of late Shri Kanhaiyalai. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the appellant / defendant under S.100 of the CPC in which the substantial question of law has been formulated which has been set - out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant / defendant submits that both the Courts below were absolutely unjustified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs ignoring the provisions contained in S.16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "Act of 1955"), as such, the second appeal deserves to be allowed. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram , 2003(1) SCC 730 , Manjhi Bharatha Matha and Another v. R. Vijaya Renganathan , 2010 (11) SCC 483 , and Neelamma v. Sarojamma , 2006 (9) SCC 612 .

6. Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs would support the impugned judgment and decree.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein - above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The question for consideration would be whether the appellant / defendant is an illegitimate son of deceased Kanhaiyalal within the meaning of S.8 of the Act of 1955 read with Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 .

9. The question so raised is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Reshamlal Baswan v. Balwant Singh Jwala singh Punjabi and Others , 1994 MPLJ 446, in which the question was whether illegitimate son is the son within the meaning of S.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Gulab C. Gupta, J. speaking for the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clearly held that children born to married woman from illicit relationship ar