https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305692 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. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305692 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305692