The burden of proof in establishing paternity for an illegitimate son and the compassionate rate of maintenance for illegitimate family members.

1. The Plaintiff, claiming as the illegitimate son of one Chidambaram Chetti deceased, has brought the suit for his share in his fathers estate or in the alternative for maintenance, against the first Defendant, the adopted son, and the second Defendant, the brothers son, of Chidambaram Chetti. The Defendants denied inter alia that the Plaintiff was the illegitimate son of Chidambaram Chetti and contended that, even if the Plaintiff were his illegitimate son, he could not inherit to his father as his mother was a married woman; that Chidambaram Chetti left no separate or self-acquired property, and that, even if the said Chidambaram Chetti was entitled to a share in the property acquired in trade by his father and brother-on the footing that it was joint family property-such share on his death in 1888 passed by survivorship to his father and brother; and that the Plaintiff cannot therefore claim any share in such property.

2. The Subordinate Judge found that the Plaintiffs mother was not a married woman, that she was continuously kept by Chidambaram Chetti as a concubine, and that the Plaintiff was his illegitimate son by such connection, but dismissed the Plaintiffs suit on the ground that the Plaintiff was estopped from maintaining it by reason of an arrangement made by Chidambaram Chetti in his lifetime, in accordance with which the Plaintiffs mother, subsequent to Chidambaram Chettis death, relinquished all her claims on receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,200 from the second Defendants father. It is impossible to uphold the decision of the Subordinate Judge on this point. A reference to paragraph 2 of the first Defendants written statement in which the said arrangement is alluded to and to exhibit II-the receipt given by the Plaintiffs mother for the said amount-clearly shows that no arrangement or settlement was made as regards the Plaintiffs right to a share as to maintenance, that the Plaintiffs mother gave an acquittance only in respect of her own claims referred to in exhibit II, and that the transaction was not one in which she professed to act as the Plaintiffs guardian during his minority or to affect any right or claim which he might have.

3. The Respondents pleader sought to support the decree appealed against by impugning the finding of the Subordinate Judge as to the Plaintiffs status as the illegitimate son of Chidambaram Chetti and by contending that Chidambaram Chetti having died undivided from his father and brother, the Plaintiff cannot claim any share in the joint property of such family notwithstanding the existence of the first Defendant, the adopted son of Chidambaram Chetti.

4. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the marriage of the Plaintiffs mother with one Kuppusami has not been proved, and that the Plaintiff is Chidambaram Chettis illegitimate son entitled to rights of inheritance in respect of his fathers estate, if any. The onus of establishing that he is the son of Chidambaram Chetti, is clearly on the Plaintiff and he cannot by simply proving that his mother was the Chettis concubine shift the onus on to the other side to disprove his paternity. The legal presumption as to paternity raised by Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only to the offspring of a married couple. A person claiming as an illegitimate son must establish his alleged paternity like any other disputed question of relationship and can, of course, rely upon statements of deceased persons under Section 32, Clause 5, for opinion expressed by conduct under Section 50 of the Evidence Act and also upon such presumptions of fact as may be warranted by the evidence.

4.1 Their Lordships then dealt fully with the evidence on which they found that Plaintiff was the illegitimate son of the late Chidambaram Chetti, and continued.

5. The Plaintiff would therefore certainly be entitled to a share in the estate of Chidambaram Chetti, had the latter left any separate or self-acquired property as alleged in the plaint. This, ho