OLDFIELD
Minakshi – Appellant
Versus
Muniandi Panikkar – Respondent
Oldfield, J.
1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and concur in it. I shall therefore merely state shortly the negative reasons, for which I think that the appellants legal argument must be rejected.
2. The case, it seems to me, must be decided on the broad ground that it is for the appellants to show that the illegitimate daughter of a woman, who lived in adultery, inherits her stridhanam, over which she had full power, in preference to her legitimate son : and that they have neither produced any direct precedent for such succession nor established any principle justifying it. As it is not alleged that direct precedent is available, I turn at once to the principles put forward.
3. Firstly, the appellants contend for the application of the law of succession applicable to dancing girls to the offspring of a prostitute, such as they allege the 1st appellants mother to have been. It is not necessary to decide whether she was one, as the appellants, contend; with reference to Annoyyar v. Chinnan (1907) I.L.R. 33 M. 366 and the fact that her immoral life began after her marriage, or was a permanent concubine as the facts
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.