C. Saminatha Chetty and Another vs Angammal and Others

Ramesam, J.—The plaintiffs are the stepsons of the stepsister of the deceased and claim to succeed to his estate. Our learned brother

Kumaraswami Sastri J. dismissed the suit, holding that plaintiffs are not heirs. The plaintiffs appeal. The only point for decision in appeal is whether

the stepson of a stepsister is an heir under the Hindu Law (according to Mitakshara) as administered in the Madras Presidency.

Mr. A Krishnaswami Aiyar who appeared for the appellant started his case by saying (1) that the stepsister is a sapinda of the propositus and

(2) that the plaintiffs are her sapindas. But he did not, and rightly,--follow up these propositions by arguing that the plaintiffs are therefore sapindas

of the propositus. Later on, he expressly disclaimed any intention to argue that the plaintiffs are Bandhus (or Bhinnagotra sapindas) of the

deceased. On this portion of the case, it is only sufficient to observe, that, in general, sapindaship involves descent from a common ancestor, the

only exception to this principle being the case of wives of male sapindas. If A and B (males) are sapindas of each other, the wives of A and B are

sapindas. This follows from the definition of '' sapinda'' in the Achara Adhyaya of the Mitakshara (quoted in Umaid Bahadur v. Udai Chand I.L.R.

(1881) Cal. 119 Babu Lal v. Nanku Ram ILR (1894) Cal. 339 Ramachandra Martand Waiker v. Vinayak Venkatesh Kothekar ILR (1914) Cal.

384; Rajkumar Sarvadhikari on Inheritance pages 601-605; and West and Bulher 4th Edn. page 114). But the sapinda relationship of such

females--except in the case of ancestors such as mother, grand mother etc., who come in among Sagotra heirs-has not served to bring them into

the line of heirs; so that a stepmother, (Mari v. Chinnammal I.L.R(1884) . Mad. 107, Seethai v. Nachiar ILR (1912) Mad. 286) or a great

grandfather''s great grandson''s widow (Balamma v. Pullayya ILR (1894) Mad. 168) is not an heir under the Mitakshara Law; except in Bombay

(Lalubhai Bapubhai v. Mankuvar Bhai and Ors. ILR (1876) Bom. 388 Rachava v. Kalingappa ILR (1892) 16 Bom. 716, Kashibai v. Moreshur

Raghunath I.L.R.(1911) 35 Bom. 389 ), generally there is no such principle of law as that--if A and B not descended from a common ancestor are

each a sapinda of C, A and B are sapindas of each other.

The arguments of the appellant are two-fold. A step mother is regarded as the equivalent of a mother (Manu IX, 183; see also Vishnu XV, 41

and Vasishtta XVII, 11) for various purposes (a) adoption, (b) sharing with sons in partition, (c) inheritance to a woman''s sfridhan. In the first

case, the principle is that adoption is to a father primarily and only in a secondary sense to his wife, so much so that, except in the case of

Pratigrihita mata or the wife who is actually associated with the husband in the ceremony of adoption (Annapurni Nachiar v. Forbes (1899) ILR 23

Mad. 1 (P.C.)) all the wives of an adopter are regarded as adoptive mothers. (See Mayne Section 167). In the second case, plural is used in the

texts-''wives'' in Mitakshara Ch. 1 Section 2 pl. 9 and mothers (matarau) in Smrithi Chandrika Ch. 4, Section 14 citing Vishnu and inferring that

''mother'' includes ''step-mother''. In the third case, the right to succession to a woman''s stridhan of her stepson is based on special texts (e. g.)

Viramitrodaya Ch. 5 part. II Section 5. Anyhow it is clear that the argument may be carried too far. In the text of Brihaspati (quoted in Smrithi

Chandrika Ch. 9 Section 3 Section 36, Vyavahara Mayukka Ch. 4 S. .10 in Mandlik page 98 and Viramitrodaya Ch. 5 Part. II Section 14)

certain other female relatives besides step-mother are regarded as mothers. It is clear that the general principle stated in Manu IX, 183 did not

avail the step-mother to become an heir (Mari v. Chinnammal I.L.R(1884) . Mad. 107, Seethai v. Nachier I.L.R.(1912) Mad. 286) and cannot in

general be relied on in questions of succession, Annapurni Nachiar v. Forbes ILR (1899) Mad. 1 and Gangadhara Bogla v. Hira Lal Bogla ILR

(1916) Cal. 944 .

The second line of argument adopted by the appellants may be stated as follows;--A certain number of females denied to be heirs outside

Madras except in Bombay (and not yet recognised by the Privy Council even in Madras) have been held to be heirs by the Madras High Court.

viz., Sister, (Kutti Ammal v. Radhakrishna Iyer (1875) 8 M.H.C.R. 88, Lakshmanammal v. Tiruvengadam I.L.R.(1882) Mad. 241 ); father''s

sister, (Narasimha v. Mangammal I.L.R(1889) . Mad. 10, Chinnammal v. Venkatachala (1890) .L.R. 15 Mad. 121); Son''s daughter, (Nallanna v.

Ponnal ILR (1890) Mad. 149 ); Daughter''s daughter, (Ramappa Udayan v. Arumugat Udayan ILR (1893) Mad. 182, Raja Venkatanarasimha

Appa Row v. Rajah Suraneni Venkata Purushothama Jagannatha Gopala Rao I.L.R.(1908) M. 321); Brother''s daughter, (Venkatasubramania

Chetti v. Thayarammal ILR (1898) M. 263); Sister''s daughter, (Sundrammal v. Rangaswami Mudaliar I.L.R(1894) . M. 193 apparently with

some hesitation (See page 198). These are not bandhus (I am here stating only the appellant''s arguments). They cannot come in as ''bandhus'' for,

if they do, as all bandhus are divided into atma bandhus, Pitri bandhus and Matri bandhus who take in the order of enumeration (See Aditnarayana

Singh v. Mahabir Prasad Tiwari (1920) 40 M.L.J. 270 (P.C.)) female atma bandhus should take precedence over male pitri and matri bandhus

and female pitri bandhus"" over male matri bandhus, whereas, according to the Madras High Court, these female heirs are postponed to all male

bandhus. Therefore they come in as heirs only as relations after the bandhus. The plaintiffs are at least such relations. Reliance is placed on Girdhari

Lal Roy v. The Bengal Government (1868) 12 M.I.A. 448 where the Right Honourable Sir James Colville discussing the right of the maternal

uncle and quoting a passage from Viramitrodaya on the question, says ""If this be the correct reading, it would follow that even if the exclusion of

maternal uncle and others not mentioned in the text relied upon by the Respondent from the list of Bandhus were established, they would still, as

relations be heirs * * "". The next succeeding sentence of his Lordship repels the suggestion, if any, in the Viramitrodaya that the maternal uncle is

not a bandhu but a relation. The appellant''s Vakil also relies on Sundarammal v. Rangasami Mudaliar where it is said that sister''s daughters are

not bandhus. In view of the other decisions above mentioned in all of which, Such female heirs are regarded as bandhus, it must be admitted that

the language of Sundarammal v. Ranga-swami Mudaliar ILR (1894) Mad. 193 is not quite clear. All that was meant was they are not male

bandhus. The case was so explained by Subramania Aiyar J. in Venkatasubramaniam Chetti v. Thayaramtnal ILR (1898) Mad. 263 . In

Lakshmana Ammal v. Tiruvengada even females who would be sagotra sapindas by birth--such as sister, and son''s daughter--are said to be only

bandhus for either they pass away into another gotra by marriage or are capable of so passing away, Lakshmanatnmal v. Tiruvengad, Incidentally it

may be observed that the words ''relations'' ''Kinsmen'' occuring in several of the English, translations of the Sanskrit texts correspond to ''

Bandhu'' or '' Sapinda'' in the original e.g. Mitakshara Ch. II Sec. VII-1 and the text of Apastamba (II 14 Section 2) quoted therein,,

Lakshmatiammal v. Thiruvengadam ILR (1882) Mad. 241 , Manu IX-1 187 (Bannerjee J''s translation in Babu Lal v. Mankuram I.L.R)(1894)

Cal. 339. As to the supposed difficulty in arranging the order of female and male bandhus for which reliance is placed on Aditnarayan Singh v.

Mahabir Prasad Tewari (1921) 40 M.L.J. 270 it is only sufficient to say that no case of female bandhus has yet come up before the Privy Council;

their Lordships'', observation in 40 M. L . (P. C.) 270, were made with reference to male bandhus only and it is. unnecessary now to speculate as

to, whether the Privy Council will recognise female bandhus, and if they do, they will postpone them to all male bandhus or place the Atma

bandhus (male and female) before the pitri bandhus and similarly for pitri and matri bandhus. In this connection, it must be remembered that

Yagnavalkya''s text Ch. II Section 135-136(Mandlik p. 220) mentions only bandhus between ''''gotrajas'' and ''pupil.'' The Mitakshara in

commenting on this, does not purport to add any new class (Ch. II Sections vi and vii). When Mr. Mayne questioned the correctness of the

Madras High Court''s decision in Kutli ammal v. Radhakrishna Iyer (1825) 8 M.H.C.R. 88 on the ground that the High Court, by that decision,

added a new class of heirs, the High Court''s reply in Lakshmana Ammal v. Tiruvengadu I.L.R.(1882) Mad. 241 was that they did not but that

they were construing the word ''Bandhu'' in Mitaksharal(Sec. VI) as not confined to males. All the decisions (above enumerated proceed on this

ground. The learned vakil for the appellants admitted before us that there is no case of a person who is not a sapinda (apart from pupil and

teacher) being allowed to succeed as an heir. Mitakshara Ch. II Sec. 3 P1. 4 and Lakshmanammal v. Thiruvengada ILR (1882) Mad. 241 show

that propinquity of blood is still all important. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the appellant is not an heir. The appeal fails and is

dismissed with costs (proportionate to the respective interests of the respondents.)

Spencer, J.

I am completely in accord with what my learned brother has said. There is manifestly no consanguinity between a man and his step sister''s step

son and there is no authority for holding that the latter is a bandhu, There is no class of relations coming in after the lines of gotraja sapindas and

bandhus are (exhausted. Colebrooke''s translation of the word ""adi"" occurring in the Mitakshara ""as well as other relations"" is a loose translation. It

may be more correctly rendered as ""the like"" are ""etc,"". In Lakshmanammal v. Thiruvengada ILR 5 Mad. 241 the suggestion that Kutti Ammal v.

Radhakrishna Iyer (1825) 8 M.H.C.R. 88 was an authority for the existence of a class of heirs who being relations, are neither gotrajas nor

bandhus was negatived by Sir Charles Turner C. J. and Kindersley J. The appeal is dismissed with costs, proportionate to respondents'' respective

interests.