Illegitimate children, although conferred status of legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, possess inheritance rights restricted solely to the self-acquired properties of their parents and are excluded from claiming shares in ancestral coparcenary property.

Judgment on Board

1. The Plaintiffs/ appellants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Khairagarh Dist Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 26A/2013 (Prabhat & Ors. Vs. Nirmala & Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 10A/11 Prabhat & Ors. Vs. Nirmala & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/ appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs preferred the suit for declaration of 1/7th ownership share in the subject property, permanent injunction and declaring the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Gandai in Revenue Case No. 133/2016 (year 2008-09) as illegal and void pleading inter alia that the suit property described in Schedule “A” originally stood in the name of late Prakash Chand Jaiswal, over which a talkies, building and chawl were constructed. Late Prakash Chand Jaiswal was the owner and in possession during his lifetime. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 Nirmala Jaiswal was the legally wedded wife of late Prakash Chand Jaiswal and from their wedlock defendant No. 2 Ku. Pratha Jaiswal was born. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs No.1 to 4, namely Prabhat, Pankaj (dead), Pramod and Smt. Preeti, were born from the relationship between late Prakash Chand Jaiswal and Smt. Tulsi Devi (plaintiff No.5), who is stated to be his second wife. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.5 Smt. Tulsi Devi died and her name was deleted from the plaint on 29.08.2013, as her legal representatives were already on record.

3. The plaintiffs have pleaded that after the death of late Prakash Chand Jaiswal on 09.12.2008, all the parties jointly performed his last rites and that during his lifetime he had maintained and brought up the plaintiffs as his children, and his name was recorded as father in various documents such as ration card and other records. According to the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of late Prakash Chand Jaiswal, they are entitled to a share in the suit property and are in possession of a portion thereof, while the remaining portion comprising the talkies and chawl is in possession of the defendants i.e. first wife and her daughter. It is further averred that after the death of Prakash Chand Jaiswal, the defendants, in collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names mutated in the revenue records on 09.01.2009 by moving an application before the Naib-Tahsildar, Gandei without giving any notice to the plaintiffs and without impleading them as parties. Against the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khairagarh, who remanded the matter to the Naib-Tahsildar for reconsideration. The defendants thereafter preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, which is stated to be pending consideration. On these averments, the plaintiffs have claimed that under the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, they are also entitled to equal share in the ancestral property of late Prakash Chand Jaiswal. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have illegally secured mutation of thei