JUDGMENT 1. - The applicants-appellants have preferred this civil misc. appeal under section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') against the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the District Judge, Swaimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 18/98 whereby the learned Trial Court has refused to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellants. 2. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that appellants alongwith respondents No. 2 to 5 filed an application under section 372 of the Act before Court below on 13.1.1998 with the averment that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi is the legally married (sic. wife?) of deceased Shri Ram Sahay who has died on 1.6.1994 and appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were born out of wedlock of appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased Ram Sahay whereas present respondents are son and daughters of deceased-Ram Sahay, who were born from the first wife of deceased Ram Sahay, Smt. Shand Devi. It was prayed in the application that the appellants and the respondents are entitled to receive the estate left by deceased-Ram Sahay and, therefore, succession certificate may be issued regarding the estate mentioned in the application. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Archana Devi, who is admittedly daughter of deceased-Ram Sahay, born from his first wife Smt. Shanti Devi, filed reply to the application and denied that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi is a legally married wife of Shri Ram Sahay. It was also averred that appellant No. 2-Sona and appellant No. 3-appellant Shekhar ware the illegitimate children of deceased Shri Ram Sahay. Both the parties produced evidence and the learned Court below after considering the evidence available on record came to a conclusion that conclusion that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi has failed to prove that she is a legally married wife of deceased Shri Ram Saya. On that basis the learned Court below also concluded that the appellants cannot be said to be successor and legal representatives of deceased-Shri Rain Sahay and, therefore, they are not entitled to get succession certificate in regard to the estate left by the deceased. It was ordered that succession certificate may be issued in favour of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants are before this Court by way of this civil misc. appeal. 3. Assailing the impugned order, by which the learned Court below refused to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellants. It was ordered that succession certificate may be issued in favour of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants are before this Court by way of this civil misc. appeal. 3. Assailing the impugned order, by which the learned Court below refused to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellants. learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is ample evidence on record indicating that after death of first wife-Smt. Shand Devi, 'Nata' marriage was performed between appellant-Smt. Shansi Devi (sic. Dhola Devi) and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay and they lived together for a substantial and considerable time with the status of husband and wife till the death of Shri Rain Sahay and from their wedlock appellants No. 2 and 3 were born. It was further submitted that if it is held that the marriage between appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay was not valid even then there being no dispute regarding the fact that appellants No. 2 and 3 were born out of wedlock of appellant- Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay they being successor and legal representatives of deceased-Shri Ram Sahay under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, are entitled to be granted succession certificate regarding to the estate left by the deceased. It was contended that the learned Court below without considering the provisions of section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act refused to grant succession certificate to appellants No. 2 and 3 also. 4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and also gone through the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions. 5. In the present case, there is no dispute that the present respondents are successor and legal representatives f deceased-Shri Ram Sahay as they were born out of wedlock of Shri Ram Sahay and his wife Snit. Shanti Devi and, therefore, they are entitled to be granted succession certificate re larding the estate left by the deceased. In the facts and circumstances The case, it is to be considered whether the appellants are also entitled to be granted succession certificate. The claim of Smt. Shanti (sic. Dhola) Devi is on the basis that after death of Smt. Shand Devi, Shri Ram Sahay married her and they lived together as husband and wife and from their wedlock appellants No. 2 and 3 were born. The claim of Smt. Shanti (sic. Dhola) Devi is on the basis that after death of Smt. Shand Devi, Shri Ram Sahay married her and they lived together as husband and wife and from their wedlock appellants No. 2 and 3 were born. From the evidence available on record. It is clear that appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi was already married and no divorce between her and her husband took place and, therefore, even if it is assumed that 'Nata' marriage took place between appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay, the marriage between them cannot be said to be a legal marriage and, therefore, appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi cannot be said to be a successor and legal representative of deceased-Shri Ram Sahay. Therefore, the learned Court below has rightly refused to grant succession certificate in her favour. But, so far as appellants No. 2 and 3 and are concerned, it is an admitted fact they were born out of wedlock between appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay. According to section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act they shall be treated as legitimate children of deceased-Shri Ram Sahay. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate. whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act. It is, thus, clear that even if a marriage is null and void under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, any child born of such marriage would be treated as legitimate child of the parties. According to section I 1 of the Act, a marriage shall be treated as null and void if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 5 provides the conditions for a Hindu marriage and one of the conditions is that at the time of marriage neither party should have a spouse living. Section 5 provides the conditions for a Hindu marriage and one of the conditions is that at the time of marriage neither party should have a spouse living. In the present case, at the time of so, called 'Nata-marraige' between appellant-Smt. Dhola Devi and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay, appellant was already legally married and her husband was living and there was no divorce between them, therefore. the so called marriage between her and deceased-Shri Ram Sahay was void marriage within the meaning of section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act recognises child born of a void marriage legitiamte, therefore, appellants No. 2 and 3 shall also be treated as successor and legal representatives of deceased-Shri Ram Sahay and they are also entitled to be granted succession certificate in regard to estate left by the deceased, but the learned Court below without considering the matter in this light, wrongly refused to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants No. 2 and 3 also. That being the legal position, the appeal is liable to be allowed to that extent and the impugned order is required to be modified accordingly. 6. Consequently the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 11.5.2000 passed by District Judge, Swaimadhopur, in Civil Misc. Case No. 18/98 is partly set aside and modified to the extent that appellant No. 2-Song and appellant No. 3-Shekhar are also entitled to be granted succession certificate alongwith the respondents in equal 1/7th share.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******