Under Hindu Law, the general principle limits heirship to legitimate issue, with only a special exception for the illegitimate sons of Sudras. Illegitimate daughters are not entitled to succeed beyond their mother's stridhanam.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the illegitimate daughters of a Hindu woman are entitled to succeed to the stridhanamoi their mothers mother, the family being governed by the ordinary Hindu Law and not by rules based on custom as in the case of dancing girls. The appellants are the illegitimate daughters of one Dharmu Ammal, who died on the 27th April, 1921. Dharmu Ammal was the legitimate daughter of one Murugayi Ammal, who left stri-dhanam property. The appellants claim that under Hindu Law they are the nearest heirs of Murugayi, who was also survived by Venkatachalam Chetti, the grandson of her sister. It is common ground that if the appellants are not heirs of Murugayi the person entitled to the property is Venkatachalam.

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellants in the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi with the object of setting aside an alienation of immovable property forming part of Murugayis stridhanam. The alienation was in favour of the respondents predecessors-in-title and was made by Venkatachalam on the 20th July, 1910. The District Munsif accepted the appellants contention that they were the heirs of Murugayi and decreed the suit, but his decision was reversed on appeal by the District Judge of West Tanjore. The appellants then appealed to this Court and their appeal was heard by Varadachariar, J., who confirmed the decree of the District Judge. Varadachariar, J., pointed out that the general principle of the Hindu Law was undoubtedly to limit heirship to legitimate issue, but in the case of illegitimate sons amongst Sudras a special exception had been made by the texts. The exception did hot, however, extend beyond the illegitimate sons of Sudras. The fact that Courts had recognised as between a mother and her illegitimate daughter the right of inheritance was no warrant for the extension of sapindaship to other relations.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the following paragraphs from the Mitakshara, Chapter II, Section 11, should be read as including both the legitimate and illegitimate daughters:

(15) On failure of all the daughters the daughters daughters take, under this text, It will go to the daughters if she leaves firogeny, etc,

(16) If there be a multitude of these (and if they be) children of different mothers, and unequal in number, shares should be allotted to them through their mothers, as directed by Gautama : Or, according to the mothers, let the special shares (be adjusted) in each case.

(17) If there be daughters as well as daughters daughters simultaneously, a tuifle only should be given to the daughters daughters. As has been directed by Such of the daughters of those (daughters) as may exist even to those, something should be given, as may be fit, from the property of the grandmother, on the score of affection.

4. This argument is expressly negatived by the decision of this Court (Oldfield and Seshagiri Aiyar, JJ.) in Minakshi v. Muniandi Panikkar (1914)27MLJ353 . Oldfield, J., observed:

It was then contended that references to daughters in the Mitakshara should be read as including all daughters, both legitimate and illegitimate, and that all alike should be preferred to the legitimate son, as heirs to their mother. But, firstly, that is not the primary sense of those references and is unauthorised by the rules of interpretation recognised by both English and Hindu Law (vide Bhimacharya v. Ramacharya (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 452). And next, it has not been shown how such a substitution can be carried out or logically-limited, should it, for instance, be extended to the law relating to the daughters right to inherit from the father, in spite of the absence of any special provisions in her favour, such as is available in the case of illegitimate sons?

5. Seshagiri Aiyar, J., after referring to the text conferring a right of heirship on the illegitimate son of a Sudra, observed that illegitim