Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 18 and 19 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court, varying a decree (December 13, 1913) of the temporary Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry.

The two consolidated appeals arose out of a suit for partition brought by Subbarayadu and his two sons (respondents in both appeals) against, among other defendants, the four sons of Subbarayadus deceased brother, Venkiah. The parties were members of a joint Hindu family resident in the Madras Presidency, Subbarayadu being the manager, and were Sudras governed by the Mitakshara. It was found at the trial, and conceded upon appeal, that Subbarayadu had adopted Ramanna, the fourth son of Venkiah, before the plaintiffs (his aurasa sons) were born. The defendant Ramanna by his written statement claimed that as an adopted son he was entitled to share equally with Subbarayadus after-born aurasa sons. Ramannas brothers, and other defendants, by their written statements raised various questions with regard to the joint family property alleging acts of misfeasance by Subbarayadu in relation to it and claimed a general account.

The Subordinate Judge made a decree for partition, and dealt with the various disputed items with regard to the family property, but refused a general account. He allowed Ramannas claim as adopted son to share equally with the plaintiffs and held that he should have one-eighth of the whole property.

There were separate appeals to the High Court. One (No. 104 of 1914) was by the plaintiffs, and another (No. 187 of 1914) was by defendants other than Ramanna and his sons.

The learned judges (Ayling and Srinivasa Ayyar JJ.) heard the appeals together. Pealing first with appeal No. 104 of 1914, they reversed the decision of the trial judge with regard to the share to which Ramanna was entitled, and held that he was entitled only to one-thirteenth of one-half of the family property—namely, one-fourth of the share of each of the plaintiffs. The judgment on this part of the case is set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee, as also is that of the Subordinate Judge. The learned judges then proceeded to consider the various questions relating to the items of the property raised by that appeal and by the appeal No. 187 of 1914 ; they varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge in the manner appearing from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Of the present consolidated appeals No. 18 of 1919 was from the decree of the High Court in appeal No. 187 of 1914, and No. 19 of 1919 was from the decree of the High Court in appeal No. 104 of 1914. The arguments relating to the share of the adopted son alone are reported.

1921. Feb. 24, 25, 28 ; March 1. Dunne K.C., Parikh and Narasimham for the appellants in both appeals. Among Sudras an adopted son shares in the family property equally with the after-born aurasa sons. In the case of the twice-born castes an adopted son assumes an inferior position as to offerings when a natural born son is born, and consequently receives a reduced share ; that reason however does not apply in the case of Sudras. The right of an adopted son in the case of Sudras rests on the Dattaka Chandrika, s. 5, § 29, which excludes Sudras from the operation of §§ 17 and 19 of that section, and § 32 make it clear that the rule is as stated. The rule relied on is recognized expressly in Stranges Hindu Law, vol. i., 1830 ed., p. 99, and in W. H. Macnaghtens Hindu Law, vol. i., 1829, p.

70. The high, and paramount, authority of the Dattaka Chandrika in Southern India has frequently been affirmed by the Board Rungama v. Atchama (( 1846) 4 Moo. I. A. 1, 97.) ; Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sathupathy (( 1863) 12 Moo. I. A. 397, 437.) ; Balusu Gurulingaswami v. Balusu Ramalakshmamma (( 1899) L. R. 26 I. A. 113, 131.) ; Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh (( 1899) L.

R. 26 I. A. 153, 161.); Nagindas Bhagwandas v. Bachoo Hurkisondas. (( 1915) L. R. 43 I. A. 56.) The view now con tended for was laid down by the Madras Hi