JUDGMENT MANJUNATH, J 1. The legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2005 in O.S.No.34/1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chikkodi, is called in question in this appeal. 2. Appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court. In this judgment, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs contend that the common propositor Ganesh @ Ganapathi had two sons by name Tulajagonda and Shantagowda @ Shanta. After the demise of common propositor Ganesh and his wife Lakshmi Bai, his two sons Tulajagonda and Shantagouda succeeded to the schedule properties and other properties and continued as members of joint family. In the year 1944 the two brothers got partitioned some properties and continued in joint possession in respect of some other properties. After partition in 1944 both the brothers were residing separately. The plaint schedule properties are the properties continued in the joint possession and enjoyment of both the brothers Tulajagonda and Shantagouda. 4. The younger brother Shantagouda was married to one Housebai. Since there were no issues out of this wed lock, Shantagouda divorced his first wife Housebai and married the second plaintiff herein. Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 3 are the children born to Shantagouda through his second wife Devakibai – plaintiff No. 2 herein. The elder brother Tulajagonda died leaving behind his only son defendant No.1 herein. Defendant Nos, 2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1. The other defendants are only formal parties. 5. After the demise of Shantagouda, the plaintiffs are the only legal representatives who have succeeded in his estate. The plaintiffs demanded partition from the defendants. Since the defendants refused to partition the plaint schedule properties the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.34/2997 for partition and separate possession of their half share in the plaint schedule properties. 6. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement inter alia contending that plaintiff No.2 is not the wife of Shantagouda and plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are not their children. It is contended that Shantagouda has not divorced his wife Housebai. After the demise of Shantagouda on 13.07.1963 and his wife Housebai. After the demise of Shantagouda on 13.07.1963 and his wife Housebai on 05.03.1965 the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not their children. It is contended that Shantagouda has not divorced his wife Housebai. After the demise of Shantagouda on 13.07.1963 and his wife Housebai. After the demise of Shantagouda on 13.07.1963 and his wife Housebai on 05.03.1965 the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the only surviving legal representatives who have succeeded to the ½ share of Shantagouda and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. On these grounds the defendant Nos. 4 to 9 have not filed written statement. On the basis of pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration. i. Whether the plaintiff prove that the Plaintiff No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Shantagouda and the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are the children born to the plaintiff No. 2 through Shantagouda? ii. Whether the Defendants prove that Housabai in the legally wedded wife of Shantagouda and she has died intestate? iii. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with the defendants? iv. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition and separate possession of the suit properties? If so, what is their share? v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the future mesne profits at Rs.1-00 lakh per year from the Defendants. 1 to 3 from the date of the suit? vi. What order or decree? 7. Before the Trial Court the plaintiffs examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. The defendants got examined three witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.65. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that plaintiff No.2 is not the legally wedded wife of Shantagouda. Further it is held that Shantagouda has not divorced his first wife Housebai. The plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and they are not entitled for partition. Consequently under the impugned judgment the Trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiffs. 8. We heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire appeal papers and the Trial Court records. The following points will arise for our consideration in this appeal. i. Whether the marriage between plaintiff No. 2 and Shantagouda is a void marriage? ii. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiffs. 8. We heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire appeal papers and the Trial Court records. The following points will arise for our consideration in this appeal. i. Whether the marriage between plaintiff No. 2 and Shantagouda is a void marriage? ii. Whether the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are illegitimate children entitled to claim share in coparcenary property? iii. Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference. On point No. 1 9. It is not in dispute that Shantagouda married Housebai. Plaintiffs contend that Shantagouda divorced his wife Housebai and thereafter married plaintiff No.2. In support of this contention the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that Shantagouda divorced Housebai. On the other hand the Trial Court on appreciation of the entire pleadings and evidence on record held that there was no divorce between Shantagouda and Housebai. This finding of the Trial Court is supported by evidence on record and there is no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. 10. During the substance of first marriage Shantagouda is not entitled to take a second wife in marriage. Though the oral and documentary evidence on record show that Shantagouda and plaintiff No. 2 lived together as husband and wife the same is a void marriage. Therefore there is no valid marriage between Shantagouda and plaintiff No.2. Accordingly, point No.1. 1 is answered in affirmative. On point No.2 11. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 contended that they are the children of Shantagouda through plaintiff No. 2. Ex.P.11 – the school leaving certificate, Ex.P.13 – the birth certificate, Ex.P.16 – voters list, Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.21 – the marriage yadi, establish that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are the children of Shantagouda through plaintiff No.2. Since the marriage between Shantagouda and second plaintiff is a void marriage, the children born to them, that is, plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 are illegitimate children 12. It is not the fault of the child to be born illegitimate. There is no justification to treat illegitimate children as lesser children. Illegitimacy castes a stigma on the children and they have to suffer discrimination in social and economic status. In order to correct this injustice the legislature, in their wisdom, amended Hindu Marriage Act by substitution of Section 16 by Act No.68 of 1976. Section 16 of the Act reads as under.- “16. Illegitimacy castes a stigma on the children and they have to suffer discrimination in social and economic status. In order to correct this injustice the legislature, in their wisdom, amended Hindu Marriage Act by substitution of Section 16 by Act No.68 of 1976. Section 16 of the Act reads as under.- “16. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.- (1) Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage would have legitimate if the marriage had been valid shall be legitimage. Whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 or 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.” 13. A reading of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifies that illegitimate children are to be treated as legitimate children. Thus the status of legitimacy was confirmed on the children born out of a void marriage. Further, the property rights are conferred on illegitimate children. When illegitimate children are treated as legitimate children then they are entitled to enjoy all the rights, status and privileges enjoyed by legitimate children. When legitimate children are entitled for succession and inheritance then the illegitimate children are also entitled for equal rights. There is no reason as to why the illegitimate children who are treated as legitimate shall be denied the right of succession or inheritance. 14. Though plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are illegitimate children they are treated as legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. When plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 became the legitimate children then they are entitled to succeed or inherit the property of their father Shantagouda. It is not in dispute that Shantagouda is entitled for half share in the plaint schedule properties. Shantagouda died on 13.07.1963 and his wife Housebai died on 05.03.1965. Therefore the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are the only legal representatives who have succeeded to the estate of deceased Shantagouda. Therefore plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are entitled for half share in the plaint schedule properties. On point No. 3 15. The Trail Court without considering this legal position committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are the only legal representatives who have succeeded to the estate of deceased Shantagouda. Therefore plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 are entitled for half share in the plaint schedule properties. On point No. 3 15. The Trail Court without considering this legal position committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is contrary to Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court calls for interference. 16. For the reasons stated above, the following; ORDER i. The appeal is hereby allowed. ii. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 27.06.2005 in O.S. No.34/1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chikkodi is hereby set aside. iii. The suit of plaintiffs in O.S. No. 34/1997 is decreed declaring that Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are entitled for half share in the plaint schedule properties and so also the defendants are entitled for half share. iv. Registry to draw the preliminary decree accordingly. v. Parties to bear their own costs.