MUKTA BAI Vs. KAMALAKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us are the three illegitimate daughters of one K. R. K. Sheti by his permanently kept mistress Sumathi Bai. They brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judges of South Kanara, for the recovery of their maintenance and their marriage expenses, from the estate of their putative father, now in the hands of the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed their suit, having come to the conclusion that under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, by which the family of the plaintiff's putative father was governed, illegitimate daughters were not entitled to maintenance. From that decree, the plaintiffs appeal.

(2.) Mr. Karanth, their learned advocate, has not seriously canvassed the finding recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge that under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, an illegitimate daughter is not entitled to maintenance from the estate that an illegitimate daughter is not entitled to such maintenance. That was the view taken by the High Court of Bombay in Parvati v. Ganpatrao Balal, ILR 18 Bom 177, and Bhikya v. Babu, ILR 32 Bom 562. That was also the view taken by the High Court of Madras in Vellaiyappa Chetty v. Natarajan, ILR 50 Mad 340: (AIR 1927 Mad 386).

(3.) If that was all that could be said about it, the appeal would have to be dismissed. But, Mr. Karanth has urged before us two new contentions in support of the appeal.