Children from void marriages only inherit parental property, not ancestral coparcenary property by birth.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed a suit for partition and separate possession against his father (Defendant No. 1) and children from the father's second marriage (Defendants 3-5).

The Plaintiff was born from the first marriage between Defendant No. 1 and Champabai.

During the subsistence of this first marriage, Defendant No. 1 entered a second marriage with Defendant No. 2 via a "Chudi" ceremony, from which Defendants 3-5 were born.

The properties in question were found to be ancestral coparcenary properties.

The Trial Court initially granted the Plaintiff a 1/5th share, treating the illegitimate children as equal coparceners under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The First Appellate Court modified this, granting the Plaintiff a 1/2 share.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which confers legitimacy on children of void or voidable marriages but restricts their inheritance rights.

Jinia Keotin & Ors. v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi & Ors. (2003), establishing that such children are entitled only to the property of their parents and not ancestral coparcenary property.

Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. (2010).

Larger Bench decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023), which clarified that while such children have rights in the parents' share (self-acquired or inherited), they do not acquire rights by birth as coparceners in joint family property.

The High Court observed that the suit properties were concurrent findings of being ancestral/coparcenary in nature.

Since the second marriage of Defendant No. 1 was void (contracted during the subsistence of the first), Defendants 3-5 are legitimate only for the purpose of inheriting their parents' specific interest.

They cannot claim a right by birth as coparceners. Therefore, the property must first be notionally partitioned between the legitimate coparceners—the father (Defendant No. 1) and the son from the first marriage (Plaintiff).

Consequently, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/2 share each. The claim of the Appellants (Defendants 3-5) to diminish the Plaintiff's share by seeking equal status was held to be contrary to the mandate of Section 16(3) of the Act, which prohibits illegitimate children from acquiring rights in the property of any person other than the parents.

It held that children born of void marriages do not acquire coparcenary rights by birth in ancestral property.

The Plaintiff is legally entitled to a 1/2 share of the suit property, and the defendants failed to raise any substantial question of law. The decree for partition and separate possession in favor of the Plaintiff for 1/2 share remains intact.