respondent who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying kist etc., in all, the Courts below are found to be fully justified in not accepting the case of the appellant that he is entitled to obtain the ½ share in the suit property on the footing that he is the legitimate son of Ramasamy. As above pointed out, when the suit property is considered as the ancestral property of Ramasamy, in such view of the matter, the appellant having not established to be the legitimate son of Ramasamy, as determined by the Courts below, the appellant would not be entitled to claim any share in the suit property. If the suit property is admitted to be the separate property of Ramasamy, when it is found that Ramasamy had alienated the suit property for valid consideration and for legal necessity in favour of the respondent and following the same, when the suit property is found to be in the valid possession and enjoyment of the respondent and when the alienation effected by Ramasamy would also be equally binding upon his illegitimate son, the appellant, on the ground of pious obligation, in such view of the matter, it is found that the appellant is not entitled to challenge the alienation effected by Ramasamy in favour of the respondent and thereby seek ½ share in the suit property.
