Rights of ancestor property to second wife sons

The status of  Second wife's son/daughter, without being divorced with first wife, is as illegitimate children. In Hindu Succession Law, the children do not enjoy any right in ancestral property of their father..

I endorse the reply above.

Yes there is a point in Dr. Vashista's opinion, consult a local lawyer with the papers in your possession.

i differ with the above, illegitimate sons and daughters   should have share in ancestor properties, according to HMA 

DEAR MR. QUERIST

                                  I AGREE WITH WHAT MR RAGHAVAN ADVOCATE HAD OPINED IN THIS MATTER . THIS HAS BECOME A MOST COMMON MATTER NOW A DAYS . IN MANY OF THE CASES THE COURTS HAVE STATED THAT MARRYING ANOTHER LADY WITHOUT A DIVORCE OF THE FIRST ONE IS THE FAULT OF THE PERSON WHO IS GETTING MARRIED . FOR THIS FAULT THE CHILDREN OF THE SECOND WIFE SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED . SO THE FIRST WIFE'S CHILDREN AND THE SECOND WIFE'S CHILDREN WILL GET EQUAL SHARE IN ALL THE PROPERTY . THE SECOND WIFE WILL NOT GET ANYTHING . SINCE YOUR FATHER IN LAW HAD NOT DIVORCED THE FIRST WIFE SHE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ONE SHARE . EVEN IF YOUR FATHER IN LAW HAD DIVORCED HER , AT THE TIME OF DIVORCE SHE IS ELIGIBLE TO GET A SHARE FROM HER HUSBAND'S PROPERTY INCLUDING THAT HER HUSBAND HAD EARNED IN HIS OWN INCOME . - JOSEPH WILFRED - 24/12/2013 AT 19.18 HRS  

Josef Wilfred is absolutely right.I completely agree with him.

DEAR MR. BHARTESH GOYAL

                                                   THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONFIRMING MY OPINION IN THIS MATTER . NOW A DAYS EVERY LAW IS GETTING CHANGED BY VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS . BECAUSE MOST OF THE LAWS WERE ENACTED LONG BEFORE AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY IS BUSY ON VARIOUS MATTERS. NOBODY IS TAKING CARE OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ,AND ARE CONCENTRATING ON AMENDMENT OF THE LAWS WHICH SUITS THE PRESENT DAY LIFE . PREVIOUSLY ON MAINTENANCE , MAJOR CHILDREN ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO GET MAINTENANCE FROM THEIR FATHER AND ONLY HIS WIFE WILL GET MAINTENANCE FROM HER HUSBAND . BUT NOW EVEN MAJOR DAUGHTERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO GET MAINTENANCE TILL THEY GET MARRIED OR GET A JOB. TODAY I READ A NEWS THAT A PERSON WHO ASSURED TO MARRY A GIRL AND HAD S*X WITH THE GIRL , BUT LATER ON REFUSED TO MARRY HER WAS CHARGED FOR RAPE AND CONVICTED AND IS IN PRISON NOW, HAD AGREED TO MARRY HER AND THE COURT ALSO ORDERED THE JAIL AUTHORITIES TO ARRANGE FOR THE CEREMONY IN THE JAIL PREMISES ITSELF . THE MARRIAGE WAS SOLEMNISED AS PER MUSLIM CUSTOM IN THE JAIL ITSELF . PARENTS OF THE BOY AND THE GIRL AND THEIR RELATIVES ATTENDED THE MARRIAGE IN THE JAIL . AFTER THAT ALL WENT OFF. THE BOY'S BAIL APPLICATION IS COMING FOR HEARING ON 2ND JANUARY 2014. LONG BACK THE SUPREME COURT HAD STATED IN A JUDGEMENT THAT IF THE BOY AND THE GIRL KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND IF THEY DO THAT WITH MUTUAL CONSENT , THEN THAT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS RAPE . THE BOY HAD ALREADY SPENT 3 YEARS IN JAIL . THE SUPREME COURT RELEASED HIM . A FEW MONTHS BACK MADRAS HIGH COURT IN A JUDGEMENT HAD OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES , THEY MUST BE TREATED AS HUSBAND AND WIFE . SIMILARLY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL . MADRAS REGION HAD GRANTED FAMILY PENSION TO A WOMAN ON THE BASIS THAT SHE HAD LIVED WITH THE DEFENCE PERSON FROM 1989 TILL HIS DEATH IN 2010. THEY HAD A DAUGHTER ALSO . HIS FIRST WIFE IN THE PRESENCE OF ELDERS HAD STATED THAT SHE WANTS TO LEAVE HIM AND THIS WAS SETTLED IN THE PRESENCE OF ELDERS . SHE HAD MARRIED SOMEBODY AND HAD SETTLED IN UAE . THIS MAN MARRIED THE SECOND WOMAN BUT COULD NOT ADD HER AS HIS WIFE AS THE ARMY WANTED A LEGAL DIVORCE . BUT NOW THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED HER FAMILY PENSION ON THE BASIS THAT SHE HAD LIVED WITH HIM FOR 24 YEARS AND HAD A DAUGHTER ALSO BASED ON A SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT . WHY I AM STATING ALL THIS IS WHEN A COURT IS GIVING A JUDGEMENT BASED ON THE FACTS BUT DIFFERS FROM THE LAW , THEN ALL THE COURTS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE INFORMED THROUGH THE HIGH COURTS . ONLY THEN PEOPLE WILL GET JUSTICE IN A SIMILAR MANNER IN ALL THE COURTS . EVERYBODY CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO APPROACH THE HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT FOR EVERY CASE .-JOSEPH WILFRED - 26/12/2013 AT 19.36 HRS