Illegitimate children are not entitled to succeed to the estate of their putative father by way of intestate succession opening after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 8, SCHEDULE CLASS I - ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN - SUCCESSION RIGHTS - SHUDRA ILLEGITIMATE SON OR DAUGHTER - INTESTATE SUCCESSION - POST-HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to a half share in the suit properties as the legitimate sons and daughter of Atmaram, who died intestate in 1966. The defendants, Atmaram's widow and legitimate children, contested the claim, asserting that the plaintiffs were illegitimate children and thus not entitled to inherit. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs were not Atmaram's legitimate children. The lower appellate court, while concurring with the trial court's finding on legitimacy, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 1/4th share in the properties as illegitimate sons of a Shudra under the old Hindu law.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the plaintiffs, as illegitimate children, were not entitled to succeed to Atmaram's estate by way of intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court found that the Act's provisions, particularly sections 3(1)(j), 4, and 8, along with the Schedule, clearly intended only a legitimate relationship with the father for purposes of intestate succession.
Issues: 1. Whether illegitimate children are entitled to succeed to the estate of their putative father by way of intestate succession opening after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether the old Hindu law of succession applies to illegitimate children born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, abrogates all previous laws and customs relating to intestate succession among Hindus, including the right of an illegitimate Shudra to succeed to his putative father's estate. 2. The Act's provisions, particularly sections 3(1)(j), 4, and 8, along with the Schedule, clearly intend only a legitimate relationship with the father for purposes of intestate succession. 3. Illegitimate children are not included within the meaning of the words "son," "daughter," and "daughter of a predeceased daughter" in Class I of the Schedule to the Act. 4. Illegitimate children cannot invoke the general rules of succession embodied in section 8 in respect of the property of a male Hindu dying intestate.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit. The court held that the plaintiffs, as illegitimate children, were not entitled to succeed to Atmaram's estate by way of intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT-An interesting question of Hindu law arises for determination in this appeal viz. :

Is a Shudra illegitimate son (dasiputra) or daughter entitled to succeed to the estate of his or her putative father by way of intestate succession opening after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ?

2. The facts are few and also simple. One Atmaram Patil died on September 8, 1960, leaving behind him, his widow Tanubai, defendant No.3, his two sons Dadoo and Yeshwant, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and his daughter Hirabai, defendant No.4. Plaintiff No.3 Krishnabai claimed herself to be also the lawfully wedded wife of the said Atmaram and plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 Raghunath and Shivaji respectively claimed to be the legitimate sons of Atmaram being born of the aforesaid Krishnabai, plaintiff No.3, and plaintiff No.4 claimed to be the grand· daughter of Atmaram being the daughter of the predeceased legitimate daughter of Atmaram through Krishnabai, plaintiff No.3. On the ground that they were entitled to a half share in the suit properties, the plaintiffs filed the present suit mainly against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for partition and possession of their said share. Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were made parties to this suit on the ground that they were co-sharers in the suit agricultural lands. The suit claim was admitted by these co-sharers, defendants Nos. 5 to 7. The main contesting defendants were defendants Nos. 1 to 4 who contended inter alia that Atmaram had only one wife, viz., Tanubai, defendant No.3, that plaintiff No.3 Krishnabai was not the lawfully wedded wife but the keep of Atmaram, that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the illegitimate children of Atmaram by his said keep Krishnabai and plaintiff No.4, the grand-daughter of Atmaram, was the child of his pre-deceased illegitimate daughter born of Krishnabai. Such being their status, the plaintiffs were, according to these defendants, not entitled to any share in the suit properties and their suit was consequently liable to be dismissed.

3. On the material issue whether Krishnabai was the legally wedded wife of Atmaram, the trial Court negatived her claim. In consequence, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 born of Krishnabai were held not to be the legitimate sons of Atmaram and his predeceased daughter was held not to be his legitimate daughter. It was, therefore, held that the plaintiffs, in these circumstances, were not entitled to any share in the suit properties. Their suit was consequently dismissed. This dismissal was chal1enged by the plaintiffs by an appeal to the District Court. The learned Assistant Judge bearing the said appeal concurred with the trial Court that Krishnabai was not the legally married wife of Atmaram and consequently, children born of her were not legitimate. On this finding, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Assistant Judge observed in paragraph 13 of his judgment as follows:"

Having ,held thus (i.e. plaintiff No.3 Krishnsbai was not the legally married wife of Atmaram), I find that even then the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share of the property of Atmaram. It is to be noted that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were born before 1942 and therefore the old Hindu Law as regards succession will apply to them. Under the Hindu Succession Act which came into force in 1956, there being no provision for the succession of illegitimate sons, the old Act as regards successful will apply. This being so, I find that the learned lower Court made a mistake in not granting a decree for 1/4th share to the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 being the illegitimate sons of Atmaram. It is not disputed that the family belongs to Marathas and admittedly Marathas are Kshudras and therefore inheritance as applicable to Shudras will be applicable to this case,"

4. In this view of the matter, the learned Assistant Judge partly allowed the appeal holding that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to 1/4th share in the properties of Atmaram. Consequential dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document