Proof of second marriage and Hindu succession rules led to rejection of coparcenary status for the son.

Evidence from close relatives, supported by registered and other documentary materials, was treated as sufficient to prove the second marriage, and minor discrepancies in the marriage document did not displace the concurrent findings below. The article also explains that a child born from a marriage void in law does not acquire coparcenary status by birth. Because the father's share in partition was separate property, succession after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 opened under section 8 rather than section 6, so the heirs in Class I succeeded simultaneously in equal shares. The earlier view treating Dinesh as a coparcener was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second marriage was proved and could be relied upon to determine the status of Dinesh; (ii) whether Dinesh was a coparcener or was governed by the general rules of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the second marriage was proved and could be relied upon to determine the status of Dinesh.

Analysis: The evidence of close relatives who had knowledge of the conduct of the parties, together with registered and other documentary materials, was admissible and sufficient to establish the marriage. Minor discrepancies in the marriage document did not outweigh the concurrent factual findings recorded by the courts below. The evidentiary rule permitting proof of relationship through conduct and reputation, along with documentary corroboration, supported the finding of a valid marriage.

Conclusion: The marriage between K. Doddananjundaiah and Yashodamma stood proved and was not liable to be disturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether Dinesh was a coparcener or was governed by the general rules of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Analysis: A child born from a marriage that was void in law could not claim coparcenary status merely by birth. The property obtained by the father in partition was treated as separate in the hands of the sole coparcener, and the governing scheme after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was section 8 and not section 6. On the father's death, succession opened in favour of the heirs in class I, and the sons and daughters took simultaneously in equal shares. The earlier view treating Dinesh as a coparcener was therefore incorrect.

Conclusion: Dinesh was not a coparcener, and the devolution of the properties was governed by section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Final Conclusion: The decrees below were set aside to the extent they treated Dinesh as a coparcener and limited the appellants' share; the appellants were held entitled to a one-third share in the properties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where succession opens after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and a child does not acquire coparcenary status, devolution is governed by the general rules of intestate succession under section 8, not by section 6.

---