https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171773 In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with only on proof of perversity; reappreciation of evidence as in first appeal is impermissible, and the High Court's contrary interference was therefore unsustainable. On inheritance, Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 legitimises children of void or voidable marriages only for succession to the property of their parents, not to ancestral coparcenary property or property of other relations. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 preserves a presumption of legitimacy, rebuttable by proof of non-access, but that does not enlarge inheritance rights beyond the statutory limit. The claim to ancestral coparcenary property accordingly failed. en-us Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2023 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171773 In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with only on proof of perversity; reappreciation of evidence as in first appeal is impermissible, and the High Court's contrary interference was therefore unsustainable. On inheritance, Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 legitimises children of void or voidable marriages only for succession to the property of their parents, not to ancestral coparcenary property or property of other relations. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 preserves a presumption of legitimacy, rebuttable by proof of non-access, but that does not enlarge inheritance rights beyond the statutory limit. The claim to ancestral coparcenary property accordingly failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171773