Illegitimate sons are entitled to maintenance from their putative father's joint family estate under the Mitakshara Law, while illegitimate daughters do not have a legal basis to claim maintenance from the joint family property.

Krishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal in a suit by certain minor plaintiffs-represented by their mother Chinnammal as their next friend for maintenance against the 1st defendant in the first instance. The learned Judge on the Original Side has given a decree to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 100 a month for each of the two boys, the first two plaintiffs, for their lifetime and Rs. 50 a month to the girl, the 3rd plaintiff, till she attains the age of 18. The appeal is against this decree by defendants Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The plaintiffs case is that they are the sons of the 1st defendant by their mother Chinnammal who was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of the 1st defendant, Muthiah Chetty, and that as Sudras they are entitled to at least a right of maintenance against their putative father. Muthiah Chetty died after filing the written statement in which he denied that these plaintiffs were his children. He also denied that Chinnammal was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of his, though he admitted that he used to visit her occasionally as a dancing girl, Chinnammal being a member of the dancing girl caste. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives, they being the co-parceners in the joint family to which Muthiah Chetty belonged. The real question now is, whether the plaintiffs can claim any maintenance against the joint family property in the hands of the defendants assuming that they were the sons of Muthiah Chetty.

3. The issues framed in the case are set out in the 5th page of the printed book, Part 1, and are as follows:

(1) Was Chinnammal kept continuously and exclusively by the defendant as concubine?

(2) Are the plaintiffs the children of the defendant by such continuous concubineage?

(3) Is the defendant bound to pay any maintenance to the plaintiffs and is the said maintenance a charge on the family property as alleged in the plaint?

(4) Is the defendant a Vysia, and if so, are plaintiffs entitled to maintenance beyond the period of their majority?

(5) What maintenance, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to?

4. No alteration was made in the form of these issues on account of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 coming on record.

5. Now, the main question of fact tried in the case is the first issue. On that the learned trial Judge after taking the evidence and discussing it very fully in his judgment has come to a decided conclusion that Chinnammal was kept continuously and exclusively by the 1st defendant as his concubine from 1904 or 1905 to about 1919. The learned Judge has set out the circumstances at length and it seems hardly necessary, therefore, to do so once again in appeal in detail.

6. [His Lordships then considered the evidence and proceeded:]

7. I have no doubt on a consideration of the whole evidence in this case that the plaintiffs version that Chinnammal was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of the 1st defendant Muthiah Chetty, is true and would, therefore, confirm the finding of the learned Judge on that point.

8. On this finding the question that arises for decision is what relief, if any, can be given to the plaintiffs in this case. So far as the two boys are concerned, namely, the first two plaintiffs there does not seem to be much difficulty in the law that has to be applied. In the Mitakshara there is an express text which deals with illegitimate children of Sudras. That Nattukottai Chetties are Sudras has been settled by authority. In Section 12, Ch. 1, there is a text which says, "Even a son begotten by a Sudra on a female slave may take a share by the fathers choice. But if the father be dead, the brethern should make him partaker of the moiety of a share, and one, who has no brothers, may inherit the whole property, in default of daughters sous." (See Setlurs translation of law books on Inheritance, page 35).

9. As a commentary on this it is stated that "the son begotten by a man of a regenerate class or a female slave does not obtain a share