Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. A good deal of the argument in this case was with reference to the rights and disabilities of the illegitimate sons of Sudras. It is well settled that the illegitimate son of a man belonging to the twice-born class cannot inherit to his putative father ; he has only a right to maintenance, but in the case of Sudras, the illegitimate son inherits to his father, his share being half of that of the legitimate son, and he takes the whole in certain circumstances. West & Buhler, 82, 194, 3rd Edition. Courts have gone to the length of holding that a man's legitimate grandson by an illegitimate son succeeds to him in preference to a divided brother on the theory of representation [Ramalinga Muppan v. Pavadai, Goundan (1901) ILR 25 M 519 : 11 MLJ 399. It is unnecessary to consider in detail all the decisions that have been quoted at the bar with regard to the rights of illegitimate sons. It is a misnomer to call the son of a dancing woman whose paternity is unknown an illegitimate son. The illegitimate son is one born out of wedlock, i.e., no marriage was solemnized between the father and the mother. In the case of sons of prostitutes or dancing women the paternity is unknown and it is only an euphemism to call them illegitimate sons. In Roman Law they are called Nullius-Filius. Dancing women have their peculiar customs. Their status is recognised in Hindu society. Their customs have received he sanction of judicial decisions and the adoption of girls by them is recognised by law, and the daughters of dancing women inherit in preference to their sons.

12. From the decisions in Mayna Bai v. Uttaram (1861) 8 M IA 400 and (1864) 2 M HCR 196 it is clear that Muthuswami Mudali and Kachi Muniappa Mudali had heritable blood between them. This is not seriously disputed by the appellant. The question is whether their descendants can inherit to one fenother ; in other words, whether the principle of collateral succession applies to the descendants of these two persons. The contention of Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar for the appellant is that collateral relationship is traceable only through the father; in other words, it is only in the case of agnatic relations the principle of collateral succession is applicable, that an illegitimate son cannot inherit to his father's collateral relations and that in the case of Muniappa Mudali and Muthusami Mudali, the father being unknown, agnatic relationship does not exist arid therefore there can be no collateral succession among their descendants. Reliance is placed on the following cases jn support of the appellants' contention. Amongst the Sudras governed by Mitakshara an illegitimate son cannot inherit collaterally in preference to legitimate heirs. Ravji valid Mahadu v. Sakuji valad Kaloji (1909) ILR 34 B 321. Amongst Sudras governed by Mitakshara an illegitimate son does not inherit collaterally to the legitimate son by the same father. Shome Shankar Rajendra Varere v. Rajesar Swamt Jangam (1898) ILR 21 A 99. The illegitimate son is under Hindu Law excluded from all collateral succession [Dharma Lakshman v. Sakharam Ramjirao (1919) ILR 44 B 185. The son of the legitimate son of a Sudra could not inherit to his illegitimate son [Zipru v. Bomtya (1921) ILR 46 B 424. It is well settled that an illegitimate son cannot claim to inherit to his father's collaterals. He cannot claim to succeed to the legitimate son of his father but can succeed only to his father and the father can succeed to him. The relationship is therefore only between an illegitimate son and his father. In Subramania Aiyar v. Ratnauelu Chetty (1917) ILR 41 M 44 : 33 MLJ 224 (FB) it was held that the father was entitled to succeed to his illegitimate son who left no issue, widow or mother. In all the cases where the illegitimate son was denied the right to succeed to his father's collateral relations the following text of Manu was relied upon: " The son of a young woman unmarried, the son of a pregnant bride, a son bought, a son by a twice-married woman, a son self-given, and a son by a Sudra are the six kinsmen but no heirs to collaterals. " Manu, Chapter IX, verse 160.

16. Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., who delivered the judgment in the case, observed with regard to Krishnayyan v. Muttusami (1883) ILR 7 M 407, Ranoji v. Karidoji (1885) ILR 8 M 557 and Parvathi v. Thirumalai (1887) ILR 10 M 334: "The effect of these decisions is that it is only when the father dies a separated householder that an illegitimate son is entitled to inherit to his separate estate, but that when the father dies an ' avibhakta ' (undivided from his brothers or other collaterals) he is entitled only to maintenance." The principle of these decisions is explained as follows in Thangam Pillai v. Suppa Pillai (1888) ILR 12 M 401: "But these decisions proceeded on the view that he had no claim by survivorship against his father's co-parceners by jus representations, and that he was neither a co-heir with his father nor a sapinda in relatton to his father's co-parceners." The learned Judge goes on to observe at page 523 : " Assuming, as explained in Thangam Filial v. Suppa Pillai (1888) ILR 12 M 401, that by reason of his illegitimacy an illegitimate son cannot claim his father's share as against his father's co-parcener by jus representations, that principle will not be applicable to a legitimate son representing his father though the father was the illegitimate son of the grandfather. If a Sudra dies leaving a legitimate son and a grandson or great-grandson by a predeceased illegitimate son, can it be contended that the legitimate son is not bound to allow half a share to the son or grandson of his deceased illegitimate brother just as he would be if the illegitimate son did not predecease the father ? If the grandson as representing his father though not claiming under him would be entitled as against his uncle to claim his father's share, it can hardly be maintained though his father predeceased the grandfather, that he cannot claim the grandfather's estate as against the grandfather's divided brother. An illegitimate son's right of inheritance to his father's property, or at least to a part of it, is not contingent but absolute, as in the case of a legitimate son, since if he has legitimate half-brothers or other heirs of his father down to a daughter's son he gets a half share and in the absence of such heir, the whole estate. The Sudra's illegitimate son is therefore in a position more analogous to that of a legitimate son than to that of other relations whose right of inheritance is liable to obstruction. The principles, therefore, applicable to the succession of sons and grandsons of legitimate sons may by analogy be applied to the sons and grandsons of an illegitimate son, viz., that they should be considered capable of representing the illegitimate son and in case he dies before his father, of taking the share which would have fallen to him if he had not so died." The learned Judge relies for his opinion upon West and Buhler, 3rd Edition, pp. 72, 82, 83, 390 and Mr. Jolly's work on Hindu Law, pp. 185,186. I respectfully adopt the reasoning of that very learned Judge, and I am of opinion that the legitimate descendants of Muthusami Mudali represent Muthusami Mudali and the legitimate descendants of Muniappa Mudali represent Muniappa Mudali.

23. I do not think that the placita from various ancient texts really assist this case because they are not in my opinion dealing with the rights of succession or inheritance in favour of illegitimate children at all, except in the case of the illegitimate son of a Sudra ; that is, in these texts 'son' means a legitimate son and 'daughter ' means a legitimate daughter. This applies even to the passage from Nanda Panditha quoted at P. 207 of Jolly's Hindu Law (1885 Edition). Illegitimate children have no place in Hindu Law when they are legitimate heirs except in the special case already referred to [see Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan (1914) ILR 38 M 1144 : 27 MLJ 353. I also find very few of the cases cited before us of any real help since this is not a contest between an illegitimate offspring and a legitimate, or a case of a claim by an illegitimate offspring to succeed to his putative father's collaterals. The question is purely whether two illegitimate sons of the same mother have between them heritable blood. The rule laid down in Mayna Bat v. Uttaram (1864) 2 M HCR 196 that the children of a prostitute, when the contest is purely between themselves, succeed to the property of their mother and to one another, is, I think, the rule to be followed in this case. As I read that case, the principle did not in the slightest degree depend either on the fact that the father was known or on the fact that the father of both illegitimate sons was the same person. It rested not on the common paternity, but on the common maternity of illegitimate sons. [Cf. also the ratio decidendi of Lingappa Goundan v. Esudasan (1903) ILR 27 M 13] that principle in this narrow form has never, so far as I can ascertain, been challenged in succeeding cases, and it is also in my opinion reasonable and equitable and in consonance with the general spirit of it not prescribed by the letter of the law of the Mitakshara, wherein heritability follows propinquity of blood and sapinda relationship is determined by the possession of particles of the same body, whether father's or mother's (see Mitakshara quoted by Setlur in his Hindu Texts, 1911 Edition, Appendix A, page 543) and the view of Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in his Letter of Reference in Subramania Aiyar v. Ratnavelu Chetty (1917) ILR 41 M 44 at 50 : 33 MLJ 224 (FB). I do not think that there is any authority in Madras for the proposition that sapinda relationship cannot exist without a father.