Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The 1st defendant was, therefore, the offspring of a connection forbidden by their customary law, and no authority has been cited to show that such an offspring has any rights of inheritance to the property of his father. No doubt the rule is well established in Madras that the illegitimate son of a Sudia by " an unmarried Sudra woman" is entitled to a share of the family property, if the concubinage was continuous, and if the connection was not incestuous or adulterous, or in violation of, or forbidden by law--Yettappa Naicker v. Venkataswara Yettia (1868) 12. M.I.A. 203. Dattiparisi Nayudu v. Datti Bangaru Nayudu (1869) 4 M.H.C.R. 204. Venkatachella Chetty v. Parvatham (1875) 8 M.H.C.R. 134. Krishnayyan v. Muthusami.(1883) I.L.R. 7 M. 407. It is argued by the appellant's vakil that the words " unmarried Sudra woman" in the text of the Hindu Law, (Dayabhaga, Ch. 9, V. 29), on which the rule is founded, do not mean a woman who has never been married at all to any one, but mean " a woman who has not been married to the father of the child," and there is an obiter dictum in the case of Venkatachella Chetty v. Parvatham (1875) 8 M.H.C.R. 134 that is " at least doubtful" whether the words are not limited in the latter sense. It is also pointed out that in Bombay the condition that the woman should never have been married has, in practice, been disregarded--Rahi and Ors. v. Govind Valad Teja (1875) I.L.R 1 B. 97. But, as Mr. Mayne points out, in all the Bombay cases, the connection with the married woman was not an adulterous one, but was sanctioned by usage having the force of law. No case has been cited in this Presidency where the offspring of such a concubinage, as there was in the present case, has been held entitled to inherit as an illegitimate son, and we are not disposed to extend the rights of illegitimate sons beyond the limits laid down by the authorities.