her status as the daughter of deceased Karumpan Thevan. It is the first defendant, the nephew of Karumpan Thevan came up with a case disputing her status as the daughter of deceased Karumpan Thevan, though he has no business with the paternity of the child admitted by her father by way of a registered instrument Ext.A1 gift deed. Inter alia another contention was raised by the nephew, the first defendant, that in the plaint there is no pleading with respect to any valid marriage or any marriage either void or voidable and in the absence of such a pleading, the plaintiff cannot take the benefit under Section 16(1) of Hindu Marriage Act. Needless to say that Section 16(1) of Hindu Marriage Act would come into play giving the status of a legitimate son or daughter who became illegitimate on account of declaration of marriage as either void or voidable by virtue of Section 11 of the Act. When the father himself, the deceased Karumpan Thevan made a declaration by a registered document regarding the status of plaintiff as his daughter, it is binding on all the person litigating under him. Then comes the question who says that she is an illegitimate daughter, interestingly, none else, the nephew the defendant who had no business with the paternity of the child. In other words, it is the case of the first defendant, the nephew, as an alternative contention, that even if it was found that she is the daughter, she would be an illegitimate daughter. Certainly and necessarily, when there is a
