concerned, the settled position of law is that in case of void marriage the wife is not entitled to any share in the ancestral property and it is only the children who are born from the void marriage and whose legitimacy is protected under Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act would be entitled to share in the property of their father. In the present case, the allegations in the plaint is that the Defendant No. 1 was having an illicit relationship with the lady named Mangla. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that there are any children which are born from the said relationship. If the written statement of Defendant No. 1 is perused, it is not the case of the Defendant No. 1 that from the said relationship with Mangla there are any children who are born. There are absolutely no details, no names given of the children, if any, begotten from the said lady Mangla. Very vague pleading finds place in the written statement that Mangla and their children, if any, are also necessary parties to the present suit. If an issue as regards the non maintainability of the suit for non joinder of necessary parties is raised, the burden is upon the party raising the said issue to give the necessary details of the parties who are required to be joined to the suit being necessary parties. In the present case, apart from contending that the Mangla and their children, if any, are necessary parties to the suit, no details are given, and as such the suit was perfectly maintainable as Mangla not being legally wedded wife did
