Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. It has now been settled that the children to get a share need not be the children of a dasi strictly speaking, but may be of any concubine provided that the concubine is a continuously and exclusively, kept concubine and the children are not born in either adulterous or incestuous connection. The fact that the woman kept is a dasi or slave, or a dancing girl is immaterial. The children would take the right of illegitimate children under the text, that is, where they claim a share in the property of their father, but where they merely claim maintenance even this does not seem necessary. It is sufficient to show that they are the children of their putative father. It is recognised by a Bench of this Court in Subramanya Mudali v. Velu 5 Ind. Cas. 919 : 34 M. 68 : 7 M.L.T. 161 : (1910) M.W.N. 138 : 20 M.L.J. 350 that where the illegitimate son of an unmarried woman is claiming maintenance only out of the estate of his putative father it did not matter whether he was the result of adulterous intercourse or not. In the present case it is not necessary to go so far, for we have here evidence that Chinnammal Was a continuously kept concubine of Muthiah Chetty. As pointed out by Sir John Wallis, C.J., in the Full Bench ruling in Soundararajam v. Arunachalam Chetty 33 Ind. Cas. 858 : 39 M. 136 at p. 151 : 29 M.L.J. 793 : 2 L.W. 1247 : 18 M.L.T. 552 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 31. "The limitation as to her being an exclusive and continuous concubine is not to be found in the texts and appears to have been imposed by the Courts as necessary to secure due evidence of the paternity, just as the further restriction that the connection must not have been incestuous or adulterous was imposed on general grounds of morality." As I have already stated we have here clear evidence to show that the children were born to Chinnammal who was kept in exclusive and continuous concubinage by Muthiah Chetty and there can be no doubt whatever about the paternity and the rights of the boys under the text of Mitakshara already cited. In Ananthaya v. Vishnu 17 M. 160 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 110 it was held that under the Mitakshara Law an illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance as long as he lives in recognition of his status as a member of his father's family and the question is not one of giving maintenance during the minority of the illegitimate son or anything of that sort, but the giving of maintenance is really in lieu of his rights in his father's estate. The case in Ananthaya v. Vishnu 17 M. 160 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 110 is a case of the regenerate class and the commentary on the text in the Mitakshara expressly applies to it nevertheless the further question as to what is the period for which the maintenance should be given is the same whether it is a case of the regenerate class or of a Sudra son. In the case of a Sudra son, the position seems to be that, because he could not be given a share that the text allows him to get in certain circumstances, he is given in lieu thereof a right to maintenance against his father's estate, very much in the same manner as a widow gets a right to maintenance against her husband's estate when he dies undivided from his co-parceners. There again the maintenance is given not for any particular period but for the whole lifetime. It has been conceded by Mr. Alladi Krishansami Ayyar that the authorities have invariably laid down that the illegitimate son of a Sudra is entitled to maintenance if he is not entitled to get a share in his father's property and that it is too late for him now to argue that no maintenance could be given; but he tried to argue that the maintenance could not be enforced against the joint family property in the hands of the father's co-parceners. It seems to me that this argument is untenable; the maintenance will be a charge upon that estate for so long as the illegitimate children are alive. The whole law on the subject has been considered rather fully in the Full Bench decision, Subramania Iyer v. Rathnavelu Chetty 42 Ind. Cas. 556 : 41 M. 44 : 22 M.L.T. 94 : 6 L.W. 149 : 33 M.L.J. 224 : (1917) M.W.N. 688. There again it is recognised that the illegitimate sons have a right to get maintenance if they do not get their share. In these circumstances it seems to me that the decree so far as it gives maintenance to the sons for their life is correct.

18. Then arises an interesting question of law, for it is said, to begin with, that the illegitimate sons, though they may be entitled to maintenance from their putative father personally, have no right as against the joint family property of which their father was a member at the time of his death. This argument is now raised owing to the fact that the defendant is now dead and the allowance given to the male plaintiffs has been charged on the family property of which the deceased was a member. Texts referring to this matter are extremely meagre and they are contained in the Mitakshara Chap. I Section 12, Placita Nos. 1 to 3. There it is said that "a son begotten by a Sudro on a female slave may take a share by the father's choice. But if the father be dead, the brethern should make him partaker of the moiety of a share; and, one who has no brothers may inherit the whole property in default of daughter's sons." The law developed from the texts seems to be perfectly clear. In Krishnayyan v. Muttusami 7 M. 407 : 8 Ind. Jur. 427 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 867, a continuous concubine was held to be a dasi within the meaning of the Mitakshara and an illegitimate son cannot take the interest of his father or succeed as collateral heir, as there is no sapinda relationship as it is founded on a legal marriage. In Ranoji v. Kandoji 8 M. 557 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 382, the texts are all examined and an illegitimate son is held not entitled to a share of joint family property at partition but he is entitled to maintenance. In Parvathi v. Thirumalai 83 M 334 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 986, an illegitimate son of a Sudra is always entitled to maintenance as a member of his father's family by reason of his sunship even though he may be the son by a married woman. Yagnavalkya's text applied to a separated house-holder. In Ananthaya v. Vishnu 17 M. 160 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 110, the case of a Brabmin, an illegitimate son was held entitled to maintenance for life in recognition of his status as a member of his father's family and by reason of his exclusion from inheritance among the regenerate classes. This maintenance may be secured on the family property. In Annayyan v. Chinnan 5 Ind. Cas. 84 : 33 M. 366 : 7 M.L.T. 140 : 20 M.L.J. 355, the rule is regarded as well established in Madras that an illegitimate son of a Sudra 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. This rule was confirmed by the Full Bench in Soundararajam v. Arunachalam Chetty 33 Ind. Cas. 858 : 39 M. 136 at p. 151 : 29 M.L.J. 793 : 2 L.W. 1247 : 18 M.L.T. 552 : (1916) 1 M.W.N. 31. There are other authorities in Madras, as for instance, Kuppa v. Singaravelu 8 M. 325 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 223, Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachelam Chetti 27 M. 32 and Subramanya Mudali v. Velu 5 Ind. Cas. 919 : 34 M. 68 : 7 M.L.T. 161 : (1910) M.W.N. 138 : 20 M.L.J. 350 and Muthusawmi Jagavera Yettappa Naicker v. Vencataswara Yettaya 12 M.I.A. 203 : 11 W.R.P.C. 6 : 2 B.L.R.P.C. 15 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 175 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 395 : 20 E.R 316 : 4 Mad. Jur. 137 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 492. Therefore, it seems to me it is well established in Madras that though an illegitimate son may be entitled to a share of the family property if there are no collaterals he is at least entitled to maintenance for life such as he has been awarded here. The learned Judge sitting on the Original Side was, therefore, in my opinion, quite right in awarding such maintenance and nothing has been shown to us to induce me to think that the rate of maintenance is excessive. The latest case appears to be Panchapakesa Odayan v. Kanaka Ammal 42 Ind. Cas. 344 : 33 M.L.J. 455 : 6 L.W. 408, where it was held that the illegitimate son of a permanently kept concubine is entitled to maintenance against the co-parcenary property of the family of which the father is a member.