kavksatyanarayana (subregistrar/supdt.(retired)) 27 May 2021
Whether the property is self acquired or ancestral? the facts stated are not clear.
SIVARAMAPRASAD KAPPAGANTU (Retired Manager) 28 May 2021
A person cannot marry when one wife is alive. In case a person marries another lady while the first wife is alive, the second marriage is not valid and that lady shall not get any share in the property of the person. However, Children if any of such second wife are entitled to a share in the father's property.
G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.) 28 May 2021
Query:" illegitimate children, are we entitled to a share of property equal to legitimate children in property belonging to the father"
REPLY: Y E S
REASON: Children are not responsible for their birth and they should not suffer for the illegal actions of their parents.
Advocate Bhartesh goyal (advocate) 28 May 2021
Illegitimate children are entitled to get share in the property belonged to their father but they are not entitled to get share in ancestral property.
Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 ) 28 May 2021
Section 16(3) was interpreted by the supreme court in the case of Revanasiddappa vs.Mallikarjun, the court held that child born in an illegitimate relationship/void marriage is innocent and is entitled to all rights to property to which his parents are entitled whether ancestral or self-acquired property.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 28 May 2021
The illegitimate children are also entitled to an equal share out of their deceased father's self acquired property at par with the legitimate children.
P. Venu (Advocate) 28 May 2021
Yes, the illegitimate children are legal heirs to their father, and they would inherit the property left intestate.
Dr J C Vashista (Lawyer) 29 May 2021
Well analysed, opined and advised by experts, I fully agree and appreciate.
The children (whether legitimate or illegitimate) are entitled for equal share in the ancestral property of their father.
Vasundhara Singh (Student) 02 June 2021
Hello, Greetings of the day!
Initially, an illegitimate child was entitled to any rights in the property of his father but due to the relation with the mother, he had a right to the property of his mother. After the amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in 1976 that amended Section 16 of the Act, title of legitimacy was given to illegitimate children, and Sub Section 3 of Section 15 gave the rights to illegitimate children the property of the father.
The term property mentioned in the section was given a broad meaning and there was no clarity whether it included both ancestral and self-acquired properties of the father. There had been several judgments where the courts tried to interpret the scope of word property mentioned in Section 16(3).
In Jinia Keotin and Ors. v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 730 the main contention was whether the word property used in Section 16(3) included ancestral and self-acquired property. The Supreme Court denied such contentions and stated that there was no need to confer more rights on illegitimate children than decided by the legislature and by doing so it narrowed the scope of Section 16(3).
In Revanasiddappa & Anr vs Mallikarjun & Ors on 31 March 2011, the Supreme Court held that illegitimate children are entitled to property rights in both ancestral and self-acquired properties of their parents.
Manisha Yadav (Student) 02 June 2021
thank you for such a detailed reply. As per my little research, i came across a few cases which are still being fought in the court of law & there’s strict push back from giving any share to illegitimate children in the ancestral property of father. That concerns me a little. Is there any way to fight this?