1. The 1st appellant, the 1st defendant in the suit is an undivided brother of one Venkataramana Oodayan who died in October 1908 and the 1st respondent, the 1st plaintiff claims to be the permanent concubine of Venkataramana Oodayan and the 2nd respondent (the 2nd plaintiff) is a child by the 1st plaintiff and claims to be the, illegitimate son of Venkataramana Oodayan. The suit was one for maintenance. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree awarding as maintenance Rs. 20 a month to the 1st plaintiff for life and Rs. 20 a month to the 2nd plaintiff till he attains majority. Mr. T. Rangachariar appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that it is not proved that the 1st plaintiff was the permanent concubine of Venkataramana or that the 2nd plaintiff was his son. [Their Lordships then discuss the evidence.]

2. We therefore agree in the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge that the 1st plaintiff was in the exclusive keeping of Venkataramana until his death and that the 2nd plaintiff is his son. We ought to observe however that in dealing with the evidence of a witness for the defence, the Subordinate Judge has thought fit in his judgment, paragraph 15 to make certai