Rachakonda Venkata Veeraraghavayya and Another vs Pinapala Sreenivasa Rao and Others

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.—In this second appeal, defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, Ankadasu,

claiming that he was the reversioner to the estate of the last male holder, Venkataswami, and challenging the alienation of Venkataswami''s

properties by his widow, Venkatalakshmamma, in favour of the father of defendants 2 to 4 on 12th September, 1908, under Ex. IV, on the ground

that the alienation was not supported by necessity. The last male holder, Venkataswami, died nearly sixty years ago, and his widow,

Venkatalakshmamma, died in 1933.

The relationship between the plaintiff and the last male holder is given in the genealogical tree appended to the plaint. Venkataswami''s father

was Viyyanna; his brother was Buchanna. Buchanna had a son called Sri Ramulu who had a daughter named Bhavani. The plaintiff was the son of

Bhavani. The defendants contended that Bhavani was not the natural daughter of Sri Ramulu, but only an adopted daughter. This plea was

negatived by the District Munsiffand the finding was accepted by the Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the plaintiff would be the heir of

Venkataswami in the absence of nearer heirs, but the trouble in his way is that his mother was admittedly unmarried and was leading the life of a

prostitute. He is an illegitimate son of Bhavani. Could he succeed as heir collaterally, is the question to be decided. The Subordinate Judge has held

in plaintiff''s favour; hence this second appeal by defendants 2 and 4.

The Subordinate Judge says on the strength of the decisions in Viswanatha Mudali and Another Vs. Doraiswami Mudali and Another, ,

Narayan Pundalikv. Lakshman Daji I.L.R.(1987)51 Bom. 784 and Dattatraya Tatya Khurd v. Matha Bala Jasud (1933) I.L.R.58 Bom. 119 that

as Bhavani had heritable blood and could inherit the properties of Venkataswami, there was no reason why her son, though not born of lawful

wedlock, should not so inherit. The cases relied on by him are, however, no authorities for the view he has taken. All of them deal with succession

as between legitimate issue or as between illegitimate children of the same mother or father. The learned Judges in Viswanatha Mudali and Another

Vs. Doraiswami Mudali and Another, were dealing with the case of a claim by the legitimate grandsons of a man called Muthuswami Mudali to the

property of one Murugesa Mudali who was the legitimate great grandson of Muniappa Mudali. Muthuswami Mudali and Muniappa Mudali were

the sons of a dancing woman called Thanji Animal. It was decided that Muthuswami Mudali and Muniappa Mudali had heritable blood as between

them as they were the children of the same mother; and their descendants can also be said to have heritable blood between them. Varadachariar,

J., has expressed in M. Ratna Mudaliar (deceased) and Others Vs. Krishna Mudaliar and Another, some doubts about the correctness of the

reasoning in this case but it is not necessary for us to pursue the matter further, as the descendants were the legitimate descendants, and there was

no claim by an illegitimate descendant (like the plaintiff here) to the property of a sapinda of his maternal grandfather. In Narayan Pundalik v.

Lakshman Daji I.L.R.(1987)51 Bom. 784 the question arose whether the sister of a prostitute could succeed to the prostitute''s property and take

it before the Crown, and Patkar, J., upheld her claim on the analogy furnished by Hindu law as regards the sapinda relationship between heirs.

What he stated was "" the analogies of Hindu law are applied to a prostitute''s mother, the daughters-are the sapindas of the mother as the particles

of the mother''s body abound in them and they are sapindas of each other because they are connected with each other through one body of the

mother."" Dattatraya Tatya Khurd v. Matha Bala Jasud 3 was again a case where the question of succession was raised as between the illegitimate

children of the same parents. The existence of heritable blood between a woman and her own illegitimate offspring recognised in Mayna Bai v.

Uttaram (1864) 2 M.H.C.R. 196 is referred to and the passage quoted is:

They are the Hindu sons of a woman, who was a woman of a class lower than the fourth of Manu''s classes, and in this case the sons are cognates

to her and to one another, as the children of a class not twice born out of wedlock, and entitled to inherit to their mother.

When we come to the question whether an illegitimate offspring can trace succession collaterally, all the authorities are unanimously against such

a right. ,In Ramalinga Muppan and Others Vs. Payadai Gounden, , Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., was considering the question whether under the

Mitakshara law a divided brother of a Sudra A who died without leaving legitimate male issue Was to succed to A''s estate in preference to A''s

grandson, the legitimate son of A''s predeceased illegitimate son. The question was not covered by any usage or custom or any direct authority in

the shape of Hindu law texts or judicial decisions and it had therefore to be decided as an abstract question of Hindu law. The decision of the

learned Judge was that the divided brother was not entitled to recover as against the grandson; but in the course of his judgment he makes this

observation : "" It is also tolerably well established that an illegitimate son, though he may succeed as heir to his paternal and maternal estate, has no

claim to inherit to collaterals."" In support of this proposition he cites Shome lShankar Rajendra v. Rajesar Swami Jangam ILR (1898) All. 99 and

Krishnayya v. Muthuswdmi ILR (1883) Mad. 407. Shome Shankar Rajendra v. Rajesar Swami Jangam I.L.R.(1898)All. 99 was a decision of

Banerji, J. a Judge of great eminence in the field of Hindu law in particular. After a close examination of the texts which are discussed at length, he

held that an illegitimate son does not inherit collaterally to the legitimate son by the same father. He points out that the only exception recognised

under the Hindu law in favour of illegitimate children is the right of the illegitimate son of a Sudra to a share in his father''s property. He quotes the

text of Manu, placitum 31 of the nth section of Chapter I, to the effect that an illegitimate son, that is, the son of an unmarried woman, is not a

collateral heir. There is a case in Dharma Lakshman v. Sakharam Ramji Rao ILR (1919)44 Bom. 185 which is to the same effect. In a competition

between the divided brother of a Sudra and the illegitimate son of the father of the Sudra the brother was held entitled to succeed, as the

illegitimate son was, under the Hindu law, excluded from all collateral succession. In the latest edition of Mayne, we find at page 690, the following

passage:

The rules of inheritance relating to sapinda, samanodakas and bandhus are based upon marriage and a legitimate descent. The illegitimate son of a

Sudra is the only exception and his rights are also restricted.

An illegitimate son of a Sudra does not inherit collaterally to a legitimate son by the same father. Nor can the son of a legitimate son of a Sudra

inherit to his illegitimate son."" Shome Shankar Rajendra v. Rajesar Swami Jangam I.L.R.(1898)All. 99 and Viswanatha Mudali and Another Vs.

Doraiswami Mudali and Another, are cited as authorities for the second passage quoted above. One more decision reported in Meenakshi Ammal

and Another Vs. Murugayya Mooppanar, is enough to show that the plaintiff''s claim in this case cannot be accepted. It was held in that case that

the illegitimate daughters of a Hindu woman are not entitled under Hindu law apart from special custom, to succeed to the stridhanam of their

mother''s mother; and this decision is based on the view that "" before the ordinary rules of succession can be departed from in favour of an

illegitimate offspring, there must be express authority to be found in the ancient texts or some statutory provision. It is conceded that the texts do

not go beyond making provision in respect of an illegitimate son of a Sudra and the appellants are not able to rely on any statutory provision.

On this unanimous authority it is clear that the plaintiff cannot be regarded as heir to the estate of Venkataswami. The suit brought on this footing

to set aside the alienation made by the widow Venkatalakshmamma will therefore stand dismissed; and there will be a decree accordingly with

costs payable by the plaintiff right through.

(This appeal having set down for being mentioned, the Court made the following)

ORDER--The suit is to stand dismissed only as regards defendants 2 and 4 who are interested in items 4, 5 and 6; as regards other defendants

and other items, the decree of the lower appellate Court will have to stand, as they have not preferred any appeal.

The court-fee must be paid by the plaintiff. (No leave).