Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. I find Issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. I find that Chinnammal was kept continuously and exclusively by the Chetti from about a year after she attained puberty and that it has riot been proved that Chinnammal was intimate with any other person during the period. I hold that she was under the protection of Muthiah Chetty, the 1st defendant, from 1904 or 1905 till 1919 and that the plaintiffs are the children born of the continuous concubinage of Muthiah Chetty.

11. So far as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are concerned, the law has been clearly laid down in Madras that in order to give rise to the rights of an illegitimate son of a Sudra either to succession or maintenance, all that is necessary is that the connection between the parents should be continuous and neither adulterous nor incestuous. The fact that the women kept is a dasi or a dancing girl makes no difference as regards the rights of the illegitimate children.

12. In Soundararajam v. Arunachalam Chetty 33 Ind. Cast. 858 : 39 M. 136: 29 M. L. J. 793: 2 L. W. 1247: 18 M. L. T. 552 (1916) 1 M. W. N. 31. it was held by a full Bench of this Court that an illegitimate son of Sudra, by a dancing woman, who was by profession a prostitute, before she came into his keeping but who was kept by him in continuous and exclusive concubinage thereafter, is entitled to get his share of the joint family properties after his father's death provided the connection between his father and mother was not incestuous or adulterous. The whole law on the subject was reviewed and that was laid down as a condition requisite to give rights to illegitimate children of Sudras. In 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. I have discussed the law on the question of the right of illegitimate children and I have referred to all the cases on the subject. In the present case I have found that Chinnammal soon after her dedication and her attaining puberty was in the continuous and exclusive concubinage of Muthiah Chetty till about 1919 and that the plaintiffs are the children born during that period and that, therefore, they have the rights of illegitimate children. Under the Hindu Law, even assuming that the parties are not Sudras but belong to the higher classes, e.g., Vysias, they still have got rights to get maintenance though not the right of succession. When the parties are Sudras there is the limitation that where the father is a member of joint and undivided family and the properties of the father pass by survivorship to other members of the family, the illegitimate children of Sudras in case, the father had no self-acquired property would not succeed to his estate but have only rights of maintenance out of the property. In the present case the evidence is to the effect, that Muthiah Chetty was a member of a joint and undivided family, that he had no separate property and. that after his death the properties passed to his co-parceners who are his uncle and uncle's sons. It is, therefore, clear on the authorities that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance. The fact that the property has passed to coparceners is no ground for defeating their claim; they would be entitled to a share if their father was a divided member of the family or had self-acquired properties and the Hindu Law is that, in cases of persons who by reason of certain circumstances are not entitled to a share in the estate, they are entitled to maintenance by those to Whom the estate has passed by survivorship. The liability to maintain is on the coparceners by virtue of the fact, that they take the estate of their deceased relations. In Anantliaya v. Vishnu 17 M. 160 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N. S.) 110 it was held that even among re-generate classes, 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 by reason of his exclusion from inheritance and that such a maintenance should be a charge on the family property. Muthusami Iyer and Best, JJ., observe There can be no doubt that under the Mitakshara Law, by which the parties are governed, an illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance among the re-generate classes. The Smriti of Yajnavalkya and its exposition in the Mitakshara, Ch. I, Section 12, leaves no room for doubt on this point. An illegitimate son is one of that class of persons who, by reason of their exclusion from inheritance, are allowed maintenance by the Hindu Law, and this is clear from the facts that among Sudras he shares his father's property together with the legitimate son. It is urged on appellants behalf that respondent is not entitled to maintenance after he attains his age, but we are unable to accede to this contention. The Smriti of Yajnavalkya awards maintenance to an illegitimate son not as a provision against starvation and vagrancy, but 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. As in the case of females of the family or of disqualified heirs, an illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance as long as he lives. We do not, however, desire to be understood as holding, that his earnings, when he is able to earn, should not be considered in fixing the rate at which maintenance should be paid.

That an illegitimate son is not entitled to inherit to a Sudra under the Mitakshara Law, if he is the offspring of incestuous or adulterous intercourse, has already been recognised by this Court Venkatachella Chetty v. Parvathan 8 M. 134. In Muittusamy Jagavera Yettappa Naicker v. Venkataswara 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 the Judicial Committee have, however, held, confirming a decision of this Court, that the natural son of a Hindu father, recognised by him as such, is entitled to maintenance, although he may not have been born in the house of his father or of a concubine possessing such a status as is necessary to entitle her son to inherit to His father.