Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) The term "Dasi" is not exclusively applicable to a female slave, but includes a Sudra woman kept as a concubine. According to the correct interpretation of Para. 29 of Chapter IX of the Dayabhaga, the term "Dasyadi Sudraputra" includes the son of a Dasi or the like; It is not restricted only to the son of a Dasi or the Dasi (slave woman or wife) of a Dasa. In the same text, the term 'Aparinita' means not "a maiden", but "not married (to the Sudra to whom she bears a son)".

(c) Under the Bengal School of Hindu Law, correctly interpreted, an illegitimate son of a Sudra is entitled as a Dasiputra to a share of the inheritance, provided that his mother was in the continuous and exclusive keeping of his father, and he was not the fruit of an adulterous or an incestuous intercourse. This right is not subject either to the condition that his mother was a slave woman in the technical sense of the term or to the condition that a marriage could have taken place between his father and his mother. The contrary view taken in Narayan v. Rakhal and Kripal v. Sukurmani cannot be supported."

14. We may now refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma, . In that case, Sitaramarnma, a Brahmin woman, during the lifetime of her husband became the kept mistress of one Lingayya, a Sudra. Since she became the mistress, she preserved sexual fidelity to Lingayya. Lingayya died leaving Sitaramamma and two sons by her. They filed a suit against the brother and the brother's sons of Lingayya claiming that they were exclusively entitled to the estate left by Lingayya. Their claim was rejected only on the ground that as the husband of Sitaramamma was alive, the sons of Lingayya by Sitaramamma were born as a result of an adultero s and incestuous connection and, as such, they were not Dassiputras, and consequently not entitled to inherit the estate of Lingayya. It was, however, held that they were entitled to maintenance and the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted them leave to amend the plaint reducing the claim to one for maintenance. Thereafter, their claim for maintenance was decreed by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court, The brother and the brother's sons of Lingayya challenged the decree for maintenance by an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court granting maintenance to the illegitimate children of Lingayya. We have referred to this decision for the purpose of pointing out one significant fact that the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not dismiss the claim of the kept mistress and her children on the ground that as the connection between her and Lingayya was Pratiloma, the children of such connection were chandals and, accordingly, had no status of a son. But as stated above, their claim was refused on the ground that the connection was incestuous and adulterous. The Supreme Court also upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disallowing the claim of the illegitimate children of Lingayya on the sole ground that as the husband of Sitaramamma was alive, the connection between her and Lingayya was adulterous and incestuous and, as such, they were not entitled to inherit but only to maintenance. Although the decision of the Supreme Court is not directly on the point, it seems to us that indirectly the Supreme Court approved the proposition that the illegitimate children of a Sudra by a kept mistress of the Brahmin community would get the status of a son provided they were not born as a result of an incestuous or adulterous connection,