( 1 )

"a million spermatozoa

ALL of them alive :

OUT of their cataclysm but one poor

( 2 ) PARAYANKANDIYIL Kanhirakunnath Kurnugodan Raman Nari was the proud father of 14 children from two wives, the first being Ammu Amma, who is the mother of the respondents 1 to 9, and the second being a lady of equally long name, namely, Smt. Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kailliani Amma (appellant No. 1), who is the mother of appellants 2 to 6. He had a flair for two; two wives, two sets of children, two sets of properties, in two different States. P. K. K. Raman Nair died on 9/01/1975, and since he left behind considerable movable and immovable properties in the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, litigation was the usual and destined claimity to befall the children for settling the question on inheritance.

( 3 ) THE litigation stared with the filing of O. S. No. 38 of 1976 and O. S. No. 39 of 1976 in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Badagara, Kerala, by the respondents for a decree for possession over certain properties, which allegedly were in the possession of the appellants, and for half share by partition in the tenancy land held in common by late P. K. K. Raman Nair with his second wife, namely, appellant No. 1. The appellants did not lag behind and they filed a suit (O. S. No. 99 of 1977) for partition of the properties of late P. K. K. Raman Nair, which were said to be in the possession of the respondents.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS had instituted the suits on the basis of their title, with the allegations that the appellants Nos. 2 to 6 and their mother, namely, appellant No. 1 were not the legal heirs of Raman Nair, while the appellants had instituted their suit (O. S. No. 99 of 1977) for partition of the properties indicated in Schedules A, B and C to the plaint, on the ground that they being the legal heirs of Raman Nair were entield to a share in the properties left by him along with the respondents.

( 5 ) ALL the three suits were tried together by the trial Court and were dismissed with the finding that the second marriage of Raman Nair with appellant No. 1 had taken place at time when his first wife, Ammu Amma, was alive and, therefore, it was invalid, with the result that the appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who were the children born of the second marriage, would not inherit any share in the properties left by Raman Nair.

( 6 ) THREE appeals were consequently filed in the High Court and the only question urged before the High Court was that the second wife and children were also the legal heirs of Raman Nair, but the High Court by its impugned judgment and order Dated 22-6-1989 dismissed the appeals with a little modification that the house in the plaint schedule property in O. S. No. 39 of 1976 was directed to be allotted, as far as possible, to appellant No. 1 as she was living in that house with the children. Hence these appeals.

( 7 ) MR. P. S. Poti, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the trial Court as also the High Court were in error in dismissing the suit of the appellant for partition of their share in the property as the appellants were the legal heirs of Raman Nair and the inheritance could not be denied to them merely on the ground of his second marriage with appellant No. 1, particularly as Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 specifically provides that, notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void, and child of such marriage, who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate and get an interest in the property of his parents, but not in the property of any other person.

( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, on the contra, is that benefit of Section 16 can be given only to such marriage as are null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and not to any other marriage. His contention further is that a marriage would be null and void under Section 11 only if it is performed after the coming into force of the Ac