Illegitimate children cannot be treated as members of the family under the Madras Act LVIII of 1961.

The State is the petitioner herein. One Karuppan Chettiar owned vast extent of land and the first respondent was his permanently kept concubine. Respondents 2 to 11 are the children of the first respondent herein through the said Karuppan Chettiar. Karuppan Chettiar had settled certain properties individually on his illegitimate children, respondents 2 to 11 by various settlement deeds long before the date of the commencement of Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The first respondent was called upon by the Authorised Officer by a notice under section 9 (1) of the Act to submit a return under section 8 (1). She declined to file the return stating that herself and her children, respondents 2 to 11 cannot be considered to be a ‘family’ (as defined in section 3 (14) of the Act). To a further notice by the Authorised Officer under section 9 (2) the respondents 1 to 11 again contended before the Authorised Officer that they being illegitimate children, will not come within the scope of section 3 (14) of the Act and that each of them should, therefore, be treated as separate units for the purpose of the Act. The Authorised Officer, however, held that though respondents 2 to 11 were the illegitimate children of KaruppanChettiar, they would constitute members of the family of the first respondent, they being her children and in that view he aggregated the separate properties given by Karuppan Chettiar in favour of each of these, and declared 46.35 standard acres as surplus lands.

2. On appeal by the respondents, the Land Tribunal had taken the view that the definition of ‘family’ will take in only legitimate sons and daughters, that the first respondent not being the legally wedded wife of Karuppan Chettiar, she cannot be brought in as the head of the family as per section 3 (14), and that therefore respondents 1 to 11 cannot be treated as members of a family as defined therein. The Tribunal also found. that, in any event, three daughters of the first respondent had been married long before the notified date and that as such, they had ceased to be the members of the so-called family of the first respondent. In that view the Tribunal set aside the order of the Authorised Officer. Aggrieved against the decision of the Tribunal the State is before this Court..

3. It is contended on behalf of the State that though respondents 2 to 11 cannot be considered to be the legitimate children of Karuppan Chettiar and be brought within his family for purpose of the ceiling, with reference to the first respondent, respondents 2 to 11 are directly related as mother and children, and as such they can be treated as the members of the family headed by the first respondent. It is conceded on behalf of the State that section 3 (14) contemplates only legitimate children being the members of the family and not illegitimate children, and that in proceedings for fixing the ceiling area of Karuppan Chettiar, respondents 2 to 11, who are his illegitimate children cannot be treated to be within his family But what is contended is that with reference to the first respondent who the natural mother of respondents 2 to 11, the latter are to be treated as members of her family. I am not in a position to accept the said contention.

Section 3 (14) so far as it is relevant is as follows: —

" ‘Family’ in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her (i) minor sons and unmarried daughters, and (ii) minor grandsons and unmarried grand-daughters, in the male line, whose father and mother are dead.

Explanation. — For the purpose of this clause, in the case of persons governed by Hindu Law, ‘minor son’ and ‘minor grandsons’ shall not include sons or grandsons:

(i) between whom and the other members of the family a partition by means of a registered instrument has taken place, or

(ii) in respect of whose family properties a preliminary decree for partition has been passed before the date of the commencement of this Act".