A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the death of the father.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal had been filed against judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011 made in A.S. No. 8 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2006 made in O.S. No. 174 of 2000 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Arani. 2. The unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S.No.174 of 2000 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, is the Appellant in this Second Appeal. The Appellant, as Plaintiff, had filed the suit in O.S.No.174 of 2000 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Arani, seeking relief of partition and separate possession.

3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:-

3.1. The Plaintiff is the eldest son of first Defendant through the fourth Defendant. The fourth Defendant is the mother of the Plaintiff. The first Defendant married the fourth Defendant in the year 1947 according to Hindu rites and caste customs. The first Defendant married one Miana as his first wife. After the death of Miana, the first Defendant married the second Defendant as his second wife. As the first Defendant through the second Defendant had no issues for 12 years, the first Defendant married the fourth Defendant as his third wife and through that relationship, the Plaintiff was born. Thereafter, the third Defendant Elumalai was born to the first and second Defendant. There are 31 items of land and house site shown as ancestral properties. The lands in plaint schedule properties are fertile lands having three bogam of nanja crops and dry crops also raised in some lands where wet crops cannot be raised. The family in question is a small family consisting of two wives and two sons. The Plaintiff and the fourth Defendant were hiring persons for cultivation in the lands which they are in possession. The first Defendant is the Kartha of the family and out of the surplus income derived from “A” schedule property, “B” schedule property was purchased on 20.08.1985 in the name of the first Defendant. “C” schedule property was purchased in the name of the second Defendant on 21.02.1987. The second Defendant had no independent source of income and the purchase was made by the first Defendant in the name of the second Defendant. “D” schedule property was purchased in the name of the third Defendant through the registered sale deed dated 01.11.1989. The third Defendant is the junior member of the family and he had no independent resources to invest such a huge sum. The claim made by the third Defendant that he purchased the property from the resources made available by his father-in-law is not true. “D” schedule property had been purchased in the name of the third Defendant only out of the income derived from “A” schedule properties. The Plaintiff sought partition of his share. The first Defendant refused. Therefore, there were exchange of notices between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Defendants sent a reply notice stating that the Plaintiff is not entitled to partition. All the properties are in joint possession of the family consisting of Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 4. The first Defendant at the instigation of the Defendants 2 and 3 attempted to defeat the rights of the Plaintiff and had come forward with false averments in the reply notice. The fourth Defendant, mother of the Plaintiff is entitle