SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1901 Supreme(Mad) 140

BHASHYAM AYYANGAR
Ramalinga Muppan – Appellant
Versus
Payadai Gounden – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.

1. The question and the only question which arises in this second appeal is whether, under the Mitakshara Law a divided brother of a Sudra A, who died without leaving legitimate mate issue is entitled to succeed to As estate in preference to As grandson, the legitimate son of As predeceased illegitimate son. Neither side relies upon any usage or custom having the force of law and the question has td be decided as an abstract question of Hindu Law. There is no direct authority, either in the Hindu Law texts or in judicial decisions, applicable to the case. The question, therefore, has to be answered with reference to established principles and the analogies which have heretofore prevailed in like cases.

2. The author of the Mitakshara defines the rights of an illegitimate son in Ch. I, Section 12. He lays down that a son begotten by a Sudra on a female slave can be given a share by the fathers choice; but that after the death of the father leaving legitimate male issue, they must allow their illegitimate brother half a share. But if the father died without leaving legitimate male issue but leaving a daughter or daughters son, the illegitimate son takes ha






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top