Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Mongal Chandra Gole vs Dhirendra Nath Gole And Anr. on 16 December, 1975 cites

Amireddi Rajagopala Rao And Others vs Amireddi Sitharamamma And Others on 18 February, 1965

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,
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 31 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Ramchandra Doddappa Naik vs Hanamnaik Dodnaik Patil on 27 July, 1935

13. There can be no doubt that Ramchandra's case supports the contention of the respondents, but we regret we are unable to accept the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. In the case before the Privy Council referred to above, the point with which we are concerned was not in issue either directly or indirectly, and it seems to us that their Lordships did not intend to lay down the law in the light of the said observation. Moreover, in that case, the illegitimate sons did not claim the right of inheritance but the dispute was with regard to their maintenance. It has been already stated that the term "Dasi" has been interpreted as a female slave or a concubine. There is no indication either by Jimutavahana or Yajna-valkya that a female slave or a concubine must belong to the Sudra community. There is also no indication in that regard by the Text and Smriti Writers. The ancient law-givers were quite conscious of the rule that Pratiloma marriage was forbidden. But in granting the right of inheritance to the offspring begotten by a Sudra on a female slave or a concubine, they did not put any restriction as to the caste of the concubine. They were very strict in the matter of marriage in that they did not allow such right to the issue of a marriage between a Sudra and a Brahmin woman and treated such issue as a chandal, but it seems that they took a liberal and compassionate view regarding the offspring of a Sudra by his Brahmin concubine. Hindu society was founded on caste system and in order to maintain this foundation inter-caste marriages were forbidden, for if such marriages were allowed the foundation would be shaken and the caste system would fall. At the same time, they were not oblivious of some lapses from virtue, for instance, illicit connection between a Sudra and a Brahmin woman, and in the best interest of the society, the son be-botten of such connection was conferred with the right of inheritance, provided the woman was not married to the Sudra and was in his exclusive keeping. The condition that the woman must not be married to the Sudra is strongly indicative of the fact that violation of the rules of marriage was not tolerated. Considered from the above point of view, we are unable to accept the contention of the respondents.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1