Illegitimate children are entitled to maintenance under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and a charge can be created over gratuitous transfers in favor of such children under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

VISWANATHA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS are the appellents in this second appeal, which arises out of their suit for maintenance instituted against the respondents herein and their putative father Alluri Ramachandra Venkata krishna Rao. impleaded as the first defendent In the suit, In the following circumstances:-

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS claimed to be the illegitimate sons of the first defendant, having been born respectively on 10-6-1960 and 26-8-1963. Their mother was the permanent concubine of the first defendant. Second defendant Is the wife of the first defendant while the other defendants are their children. After the birth of the first plaintiff, the second defendant and the father of the first defendant made the first defendant to execute a settlsmen deed on 30-6-61 (Ex. B-9) in favour of defendants 3 to 7, in respect of plaint A Schedule properties and Item I of the B Schedule. The first defendant alone contln ed In possession of these properties. He execused an agreement on 4-3-1964 agreeing tc give 80 cents of the land to the plaintiff s mother and also pay maintenance to the plaintiffs at the rate of rs. 50/- each and to provide for their education. Since M:y 1967 the first defendant stopped visiting the plaintiff s mocher. He executed again another nominal gift deed In favour of the 8th defendant on 5-7-1967 (Ex. B-8) In respect of plaint B schedule prooerty in order to defeat and delay the claims of ths plaintiffs for maintenn:e. Plaintiffs claimed that the firs: defe> dint Is bound to maintain them, who are his Illegitimate children. The first defendant s family gets an annual Income of s, 40,000/- Hence each of the plaintiffs claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and at least Rs 200/- per annum towards residence.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 contested the suit stating that the settlement deeds are true and valid and are binding on the plainiffs and that they (defendants) are not liable for the suit claim. They also denied that the plaintiff s mother was the exclusive concubine of the first defendant and plaintiffs were born to them. The income on the properties was not Rs. 40,000/- per year as alleged by the plaintiffs, but only rs 3,500/-to Rs. 4,000/- per year. The other defendants filed a separate written statement contending that second defendant has right to be maintained by the other defendants from out of the income of the family properties. In other respects they adopted the written statements of the defendants 3 and 4.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings the trial court framed appropriate issues. On the first issue it was found that the plaintiff s mother and the first defendant lived like wife and husband and the plaintifis were born to them on account of the exclusive concubinage of their mother with the first defendant. On issue No. 2 it was found that the agreement dated 4. 3. 1954 (Ex. A 11) executed by the first defendant to the mother of plaintiffs was true, but it was not binding on the defendants 2 to 8 On issue no. 3 it was found that the two settlement deeds Exs. B-8 and B-9 are only gratuitous transfers and they are not the result of the family arrangement as pleaded by the contesting defendants. On issue 4, it was found that the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance at the rat of Rs. 40/- per month and Rs. 100/- per year towards provision for residence and that they are also entitled to a charge but the second plaintiff, who was born subsequent to the document Ex. B-9, cannot claim a charge over those properties. In the result the suit was decreed for the maintenance aforesaid against the first defendant with a charge against A schedule properties and Items 2 and 3 of B schedule properties, so far as the first plaintiff was concerned and against the B schedule properties only so far as the second plaintiff is concerned

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 8 alone prefer" red the appeal A. S. No. 339 of 1971 before the learned Subordinat Judge, tanuku, where from it was transferred and numbered as A. S. 58 of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document