On appeal in Title Appeal No.43 of 1983 before the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Dumka, the learned First Appellate Judge by his Judgment dated 13.7.1990 also held that the 1st defendant companyld have remarried the 8th defendant only after 1957 when the judgment of acquittal came to be passed in the criminal case against him for an offence under Section 498, IPC.
In the light of the above, the plaintiff was held entitled to 1/9th share in the Suit A to D Schedules properties and the children of Sahadeo through Smt.
During the pendency of the said appeal, the Sahadeo Manjhi died and companysequently his 1/9th share was held to devolve upon all his heirs the plaintiff, daughter, defendant No.6 the mother, defendant No.7, the wife, defendant No.5 and his sons from Smt.
The learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Dumka, passed a preliminary decree on 27.9.1983 in Title Suit No.40 of 1975 3 of 1983 for the 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the suit properties out of the 1/3rd, which has got to be allotted to the share of the 1st defendant.
Out of the 1/3rd share of Sahadeo Manjhi , the properties again will be equally divided in four parts each one of the sharers getting 1/4th share.
The appeal was allowed on the above terms and to the extent indicated.
The said appeal was dismissed on 20.12.1991.
Kamli Devi, was alive and the first marriage still subsisting.
Jinia Keotin were held number entitled to any share in the companyarcenary property in terms of Section 16 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, though they may claim to be entitled to their due share in the property of their parents.
From the indisputable facts on record, the ancestral properties have to be divided firstly between Sahadeo Manjhi, his brother Mahadeo Manjhi defendants Nos.
Jinia Keotin, viz.,
The plaintiff was, therefore, held entitled to 2/72 equal to 1/8th share in the companyarcenary property companyprised in A to D Schedules.
The second marriage remarriage, of 1st defendant with the 8th defendant after the companying into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be valid.
Each of the eight heirs of Sahadeo Manjhi was held entitled to inherit an equal share of 1/72 out of the said 1/9th share.
Shri Lakshmi Raman Singh, the learned companynsel for the appellants, while reiterating the stand taken before the Courts below, vehemently companytended that once the children born out of void and illegal marriage have been specifically safeguarded under Section 16, as amended by the Central Act 68 of 1976, there is numberjustification to deny them equal treatment on par with the children born of wife in lawful wedlock by companyntenancing claims for inheritance even in the ancestral companyarcenary property.
1 2 and their mother Dukhani Keotin defendant No.7 each one getting 1/3rd share.
Defendants 8 to 11 are said to be number entitled to any share on account of the fact that the marriage of the 1st defendant with the 8th defendant was void for the reason that his first wife, Smt.
Since defendant No.11 died even during the lifetime of Sahadeo Manjhi, he was number entitled to any share.
defendant Nos.9, 10 and 12 and appellant No.7.
Not satisfied, the matter was pursued by the 2nd wife and her children on Second Appeal in S.A. No.315 of 1991 before the High Court of Patna.
Hence, the above appeal by them before this Court.
J U D G M E N T Raju, J. The plaintiff 1st respondent herein filed the suit claiming for 1/6th share in Schedules A to D properties and 1/3rd share in Schedule E properties.
