NARAYANI AMMAL Vs. GOVINDASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises an interesting question of Hindu Law - Whether the widows of a legitimate son are entitled to succeed to his mother's stridhana property in preference to her illegitimate daughter?

(2.) THULASI was the mother who died in 1947, leaving her legitimate son who died in 1949 and an illegitimate daughter by name Manickam. The two widows of the son survived. During her lifetime, Thulasi made over portions of certain properties which she had purchased earlier, to Manickam. The defendant's father purchased a small extent of property from the daughter which was not covered by the conveyance of Thulasi in her favour. The suit was brought by the two widows for title and recovery of possession. The first court decreed the suit. But it was reversed by the lower appellate court on the view that Manickam though an illegitimate daughter, was entitled to succeed to Thulasi as her stridhana heir. The second appeal arising out of the first appellate Court's decree has been referred to a Bench of three Judges because there was a conflict of opinions between Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan, 1 Mad LW 704 : (AIR 1915 Mad 63) and Venkanna v. Narayanamma, 66 Mad LW 801 : (AIR 1954 Mad 136).

(3.) MEENAKSHI v. Muniandi Panikkan, 1 Mad LW 704 : (AIR 1915 Mad 63) held that except in the case of illegitimate sons of Sudras, illegitimate children have no right of succession under the Mitakshara law. That was a case of a woman leaving a legitimate son and an illegitimate daughter. Seshagiri Ayyar, J. if we may say so with respect, took an extreme view that illegitimate children had no place in Hindu law, at least under the Mitakshara system, except in the special cases he referred to. He thought that Section XI, which we referred to earlier, should be interpreted in the normal sense, that is to say, reference to a daughter there means only a legitimate daughter. The learned Judge observed -