Facts/Background:

• This case was a Reference made to a larger bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and determine whether children from void or voidable marriages should have rights to ancestral property.
• The Supreme Court in Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003) 1 SCC 730 ruled that children born out of void and voidable marriages could inherit only self-acquired property, not ancestral or coparcenary property. This was later upheld in Neelamma v. Sarojamma (2006) 9 SCC 612 and Bharatha Matha v. R Vijaya Renganathan (2010) 11 SCC 483.
• The two-judge Bench in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun questioned the correctness of the decisions in Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003) 1 SCC 730, Neelamma v. Sarojamma (2006) 9 SCC 612 and Bharatha Matha v. R Vijaya Renganathan (2010) 11 SCC 483 stating that Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act did not distinguish between ancestral and self-acquired property. Hence, children of void and voidable marriages should not be discriminated for inheritance rights.
• Therefore, the Reference was made before the Three Judge Bench.
  

Main Issue:

1. Whether a child conferred with legislative legitimacy under Section 16(1) or 16(2) is entitled to ancestral/coparcenary property or only to the self-acquired property of the parents? (Paragraph 17)