Back
1936 Supreme(Mad) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Varadachariar, J.
Meenakshi Ammal and Anr.
Versus
Ramaswami Josier and Anr.
Decided On : 04.11.1936
The general principle of the Hindu Law is to limit heirship to legitimate issue, but a special exception has been made for illegitimate sons amongst Sudras.
Headnote:
Hindu Law - Illegitimate Sons - Inheritance
Fact of the Case:
The parties are governed by the ordinary Hindu Law and not by any rule of custom as in the case of dancing girls. The general principle of the Hindu Law is to limit heirship to legitimate issue but in the case of illegitimate sons amongst Sudras a special exception has been made by the texts.
Finding of the Court:
The decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Rathnavelu Chetty (1917)33MLJ224 proceeds on the footing that as the special text relating to the illegitimate son must proceed on the footing of a recognition of sapindaship between the illegitimate son and his putative father, the latter may well be held to be a sapinda of the illegitimate son and as such entitled to inherit his property.
Issues: The issue is whether the recognition of a right of inheritance as between the mother and the illegitimate daughter will warrant an extension of sapindaship to other relations.
Ratio Decidendi: The general principle of the Hindu Law is to limit heirship to legitimate issue, but a special exception has been made for illegitimate sons amongst Sudras. The court found that the recognition of a right of inheritance as between the mother and the illegitimate daughter will not warrant an extension of sapindaship to other relations.
Final Decision: The decision of the lower appellate Court is right and the second appeal must be dismissed with costs. (Leave to appeal granted.)
Varadachariar, J.
1. The parties are governed by the ordinary Hindu Law and not by any rule of custom as in the case of dancing girls. The general principle of the Hindu Law is undoubtedly to limit heirship to legitimate issue but in the case of illegitimate sons amongst Sudras a special exception has been made by the texts. One should ordinarily have thought (on the analogy of the principle ex pressio unius) that this itself is a clear indication against recognising similar exceptions by way of analogy. The decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Rathnavelu Chetty (1917)33MLJ224 proceeds on the footing that as the special text relating to the illegitimate son must proceed on the footing of a recognition of sapindaship between the illegitimate son and his putative father, the latter may well be held to be a sapinda of the illegitimate son and as such entitled to inherit his property. There is no scope for the extension of this reasoning by analogy. Similarly the recognition of a right of inheritance as between the mother and the illegitimate daughter Dundappa v. Bhimawa I.L.R.(1920) 45 Bom. 557 will not warrant an extension of sapindaship to other relations because in that very case the learned Judges were not prepared to postulate sapindaship between the putative father and the illegitimate daughter. The opening sentence in p. 763 of Ghoses Hindu Law (3rd Edition) restricts the illegitimate childs inheritance to the mothers property. The decision of the lower appellate Court is right and the second appeal must be dismissed with costs.
2. (Leave to appeal granted.)
