Hansaria, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The dispute at hand relates to property bearing door Nos. 297 to 306 which once belonged to one M. Abdul Sattar and his younger brother M. Sattar. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the daughters of M. Sattar through his first wife, the third respondent. The two appellants claimed themselves to be the offspring of M. Sattar through his second wife. They challenged a deed of settlement by the aforesaid Sattars relating to the property in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the same had been obtained by misrepresentation, fraud and coercion. After the death of both the Sattars, the appellants filed a suit in the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, claiming that they were entitled to 53 and 1/2 out of 72 shares and mesne profits. Respondents' case was that the appellants are illegitimate children of M. Sattar, and so, not entitled to any share; and the settlement deed was valid. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellants were not legitimate children of M. Sattar and the settlement deed was valid.
(3.) Shri Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, has strenuously urged that the finding of the High Court relating to legitimacy is untenable inasmuch as the Court gave undue importance to Exhibit A.9, which is a copy of marriage register containing recital of marriage of M. Sattar and his second wife stating "I affirm that this date I have married". (Emphasis supplied). Shri Mohan contends that apart from this exhibit, which is dated 26-8-1967, there are many documents to show that M. Sattar had acknowledged paternity prior to that date. It is submitted that these acknowledgments were not viewed in proper perspective by the High Court.;