The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Hindu law to determine the validity of a Sudra's marriage with a dancing girl and the entitlement to partition and maintenance in a family dispute.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. These three appeals arise out of suits filed in the Subordi-nate Judges Court of Devalcottah. Appeal No. 233 of 1943 and Appeal No. 501 of 1943 are from the decree passed in O.S. No. 10 of 1943. Appeal No. 500 of 1943 is from the decree passed in O.S. No. 33 of 1942. O.S. No. 10 of 1943 is the first in time. It was originally filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah where it was numbered O.S. No. 93 of 1939. It was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga and there numbered O.S. No. 57 of 1940. It was transferred back to the Subordinate Judges Court of Devakottah and on this occasion numbered O.S. No. 10 of 1943. The two suits were tried together and were dealt with in a common judgment. The three appeals have been heard together and can likewise be dealt with in a common judgment. For convenience, we shall refer to the parties according to their designations in O.S. No. 10 of 1943.

2. There are three plaintiffs in O.S. No. 10 of 1943, Subramaniam, Lakshmi Achi and Swarnavalli Achi. The first two plaintiffs are the children of the third plaintiff and are minors. They sue through their mother as next friend. There are five defendants. The first defendant is the husband of the third plaintiff and the father of the minor plaintiffs. The second defendant is the minor daughter of the first defendant by his first wife, who died in the month of May, 1931. The third defendant claims to be a lawful wife of the first defendant and the fourth defendant claims to be his son by the third defendant. The fifth defendant is a minor son of the first defendant by a wife whom he married in May, 1939. The third plaintiff was married to the first defendant in August, 1931. The first plaintiff sued for a decree for partition of the family estate. On the date of the institution of the suit the joint family consisted of the first defendant and the first plaintiff. The fifth defendant was not then born. The second plaintiff claimed a decree for maintenance and a sum for her marriage expenses. The third plaintiff also claimed a decree for maintenance. The third and fourth defendants were made parties because the plaintiffs denied that the third defendant was ever married to the first defendant who also repudiated the claim of the third defendant to be his wife. Further he denied that the fourth defendant was his son.

3. In proceedings instituted under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the fourth defendant claiming through his mother obtained an order for maintenance against the first defendant at the rate of Rs. 25 per mensem. In the same proceedings the fourth defendant claimed maintenance for herself, but this claim was disallowed. The case before the Magistrate was decided on the basis that the third defendant was a dancing girl and that she had not proved that she had remained chaste from the date when the first defendant abandoned her. As the result of the order for maintenance the first defendant filed O.S. No. 33 of 1942 for a declaration that the third defendant is not his wife and that the fourth defendant is not his son.

4. The first defendant dented that the first plaintiff was entitled to a decree for partition on the ground that it would not be for the minors benefit. On this issuethe Subordinate Judge dicided in favour of the first plaintiff. Tsdhe reasons set forth in the judgment are not satisfactory. The main ground of his decision appears to have been the incompatibility of temper shown by the third plaintiff and the first defendanat. As we shall in due course indicate there are however grounds for holding that a decree for partition is for the benefit of the first plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge held that the second plaintiff was entitled to maintence at the rate or Rs. 50 per annum but not to a decree for her marriage expenses. He found that thethird plaintiff was not entitled to separate maintence. The Subordi- nate Judge held against the th