Entitlement of illegitimate daughter over the stridhana of mother’s property.

The main question that arises for determination in these appeals is as to whether illegitimacy is a bar to succession to a Hindu woman’s stridhana. One Yedida Ayyapparaju died possessed of considerable movable and immovable properties leaving behind him his widow Seshamma and two daughters Annapurnamma and Mangamma. He executed his last will and testament on 4th November, 1914 and died on 14th November, 1914. Mangamma died on nth September, 1915 and Annapurnamma died on 20th July, 1930, leaving behind her a son, who died on 18th March, 1931. Long after her husband’s death, Seshamma gave birth to Narayanamma, who is the plaintiff and there is no dispute that the plaintiff was not the legitimate daughter of Ayyapparaju and Seshamma. The widow having died on 23rd December, 1942, the plaintiff claimed to be the heir to her mother and claimed her stridhana properties, the first defendant, who resisted delivery of possession being the divided brother of Ayyapparaju. Under the will, Ayyapparaju gave a life interest to Seshamma in the properties which he obtained in the partition between himself and the other members of his family, the remainder to his daughters Annapurnamma and Mangamma, and the properties described in Schedule to the plaint, which are of the extent of 8 acres 17 cents and then of the extent of 7 acres and 95 cents were bequeathed to Seshamma absolutely, according to the plaintiff’s contention. It is stated that Seshamma became a lunatic and the 1st defendant took possession of the properties as her manager appointed by Court in O.P.No.55 of 1929 on the file of the District Court, Rajahmundry. The 1st defendant continued to be in possession of the properties even after the death of Seshamma and the plaintiff had therefore to institute the suit to recover possession of the A and B schedule properties. The A schedule properties are those which were bequeathed to Seshamma absolutely and the B schedule properties consisting of nine items are those which were admittedly acquired by her subsequent to the death of her husband, by Seshamma.

The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant mainly on the ground that being the illegitimate daughter of Seshamma she was not entitled to claim her absolute properties, that in any event, the B schedule properties were an accretion to the estate of her husband and they were not Seshamma’s stridhana properties, and that in respect of A schedule properties the will did not confer an absolute interest but only a limited interest on Seshamma. The learned Subordinate Judge held that items 1 to 3 out of the B schedule properties alone were Seshamma’s separate properties, but items 4 to 9 were accretions to her husband’s estate to which the plaintiff was not entitled to as she was the illegitimate daughter of Seshamma, that in any event she was entitled to inherit her mother’s stridhana properties, which are items 1 to 3 of B schedule and that illegitimacy was no bar for her to inherit her mother’s stridhana properties. There are two appeals, A.S.No.236 of 1950 by the first defendant and A.S.No.661 of 1950 by the plaintiff.

It will be convenient first to dispose of the question as to the nature of the A schedule and B schedule properties whether they are stridhana properties of Seshamma or properties belonging to her husband either as accretions or in respect of which Seshamma had not been given any absolute interest under the will. In so far as the A schedule properties are concerned, the recital in the will is as follows:

“Out of the lands owned by me at Donthikurru village, the inam wet land bearing re-survey No.238 and measuring a acres 26 cents, and the zeroyati wet land, No.219/1 measuring 1 acre 3 cents, and No. 204 measuring 4 acres 66 cents, in all the 7 acres 95 cents of land, with all things therein, my wife has been authorised to enjoy at her pleasure with absolute rights and powers of disposition by way of gift, sale, etc., etc.”

A reading of this claus