Hindu Marriage Act, 1955–Sec. 16–Evidence Act, 1872–Secs. 17 & 18–Child of void or voidable marriage–Rights in the property–Statements in Ex. B-6 is clear admission of M as how he treated appellant no. 1, respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 as his sons–Respondent no. 3 is claiming through M, the common predecessor in interest, therefore, the admission is binding on him–Once the status of parties, other than respondent no. 3, is established as the extended family of propositus, irrespective of whether the marriage of appellant no. 2 and respondent no. 2 with M were void or voidable, denying the children of M a share in the property of notional partitioned in favour of M cannot be sustained–In the instant case, the claim as a coparcenary is not acceptable for want of evidence on the factum of the marriage of M with appellant no. 2, respondent no. 2, the courts below ought to have considered the relief from admitted circumstances on record–In the notionally partitioned share of M, his children, appellant nos. 1 & 3, respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 would get the equal shares.
