 I would not be able to understand, but since a lot of viewers are from Karnataka, they said that I could just explain in 10 minutes in Kannada. It would be total Greek to me. You want me to speak in Kannada? A lot of people have posted in the chat box. Somebody in 10 minutes. I will do it in Kannada. There is no problem. In the case of Revanasiddhappa, the Supreme Court said that the birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children. They are given the status of legitimate children under section 163. They are conferred with legitimacy by virtue of section 163. They are also considered legitimate children. However, in the case of section 163, the birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. However, in the case of the Supreme Court, the birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. They do not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. However, the birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. The birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. However, the birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. They do not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children would be normal illegitimate children under section 163. However, the birth of illegitimate children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of illegitimate children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of four children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 161 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. The birth of two children under section 163 would not have any co-parseness with the Mithakshara joint family. Sarayavuva