J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 12.12.2014 made in O.S. 179 of 2012.

2.The appellant is the first defendant in the suit; the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 11/13th share in the suit properties; the properties were originally owned by one Veerappan Chettiar, who had two wives; the plaintiffs 1 to 9 are the children of Veerappan Chettiar born through his 1st wife Jayalakshmi; the plaintiffs 10 and 11 and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Veerappan Chettiar born through his 2nd wife Kamalammal; Veerappan Chettiar died on 29.03.1999; Jayalakshmi died on 15.11.20109 and Kamalammal died on 21.07.2012; the 1st item of the suit property was purchased by Veerappan Chettiar by virtue of the registered sale deed, dated 04.09.1970 and the 2nd item was purchased through unregistered sale deed, dated 30.06.1979; from the date of purchase of the suit properties, Veerappan Chettiar was in possession and enjoyment of the same; Veerappan Chettiar died intestate by leaving behind his 1st wife and the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs; Jayalakshmi died intestate on 15.11.2009 and Kamalammal died on 21.07.2012; as the legal heirs of the deceased Veerappan Chettiar, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 also became entitled to the suit properties; Kamalammal being the 2nd wife got married to Veerappan Chettiar, while his marriage with his 1st wife Jayalakshmi was subsisting; even though Kamalammal is not entitled for any share in any properties, because of the illegal marriage, her children are entitled to the shares; the plaintiffs issued notice for partition on 20.10.2012; the defendants have received the notice and did not come forward for division of properties; hence, the suit has been filed to divide the suit properties into 13 equal shares and to allot 11/13th share to the plaintiffs and pass a preliminary decree for partition.

3.The 1st defendant has filed his written statement by stating that the plaintiffs and defendants are the children born through Veerappan Chettiar through his two wives; the 1st wife of Veerappan Chettiar is Kamalammal and her younger sister Jayalakshmi is the 2nd wife of Veerappan Chettiar; the said Kamalammal and his younger sister Jayalakshmi have jointly filed a suit in O.S. No. 440 of 1968 before the District Munsif Court, Trichy for management of the Temple after the death of Veerappan Chettiar and obtained a decree; in the said case, it has been stated that, Kamalammal was the wife of Veerappan Chettiar and Jayalakshmi was the sister of Kamalammal and it will prove that, Kamalammal is the 1st wife of Veerappan Chettiyar; but however, he married two wives even before the year 1949; hence, both the marriages were valid and both the wives are entitled to seek the shares; the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to this case; the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act were codified laws and came into effect from 1955; hence, the two wives of Veerappan Chettiar would be entitled to equal shares and the plaintiffs 1 to 9 are entitled to their shares out of ½ share allotted to their mother - Jayalakshmi and the plaintiffs 10 and 11 and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to their share out of ½ share allotted to their mother Kamalammal; if the share is worked out on this basis, the defendants are entitled to get ¼ out of ½ share of their mother, i.e., 1/8 share; hence, the preliminary decree should be passed by allotting 1/8th share to each of the defendants.

4.The 1st plaintiff has filed the reply statement stating that Kamalammal married one Ramasamy Chettiar prior to her marriage with Veerappan Chettiar; despite Jayalakshmi was her younger sister, she only married Veerappan Chettiar first; Kamalammal had been to the house of the Veerappan Chettiar just to maintain the children born through Jayalakshmi; later, Ve