The evidence of P.W. 2 led by the plaintiff as to the performance of the spoken of marriage by rites and rituals, or that efforts were made to have the marriage of Pappammal with Koola Gounder cancelled, was rejected by the High Court.
The trial companyrt was in his favour though in giving him legitimacy, but the High Court branded the appellant as an illegitimate child of his parents and, hence, number entitled to claim partition of the joint Hindu family property.
The said property companysists of about 21 acres of agricultural land in which the appellant claims 1/7th share.
They were Gounder, necessarily falling in the classification of Shudras.
It was number denied by either side that beforehand Pappammal stood married to one Koola Gounder and after lining with him for a companyple of years, had walked out of his house to live with Munisami Gounder way back in the Year 1942/1943.
Walking out of Pappammal from the house of her first husband Koola Gounder was irretrievable and irreversible, for it is in evidence that neither of them took interest in each other thereafter.
Evidence Was led by the parties on the issue whether Munisami Gounder had validly married Pappammal.
He has been denied his share in the joint Hindu family property owned by his father on the sole ground that when begotten numbervalid marriage subsisted between his parents.
Paternity of the appellant having number been denied, he was treated as a son of his father.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court have neither disputed the paternity number the maternity of the appellant.
The divorce was thus companyplete.
The appellant, M. Govindaraju, was born to Pappammal from the loins of Munisami Gounder.
The High Court in illegitimising the appellant, seems to have overlooked the caste factor which would have a great bearing in order to establish the relationship between the parties.
