YENDAMURI VEERANNA Vs. YENDAMURI SATYAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sattappa, a member of the dancing girl community, died in 1896 leaving his widow Paddamma, to whom he was lawfully married, and two daughters Pedda Satyabhama, who died in 1907, and Chinna Satyabhama, who died in 1938. Both these daughters led the ordinary life of women of their community and had children whose paternity is unknown. Pedda Satyabhama had only one daughter, who was impleaded as the first defendant. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 are her offspring by promiscuous unions. Third defendant is the son of second defendant. The plaintiff is the only son of Chinna Satyabhama and defendants 6, 7 and 9 are the daughters of Chinna Satyabhama by promiscuous unions. The eighth defendant is the daughter of the seventh defendant. The plaintiff claims the property of his grandfather, Sattappa, as his daughter's son, who has a preferential right to his grandfather's property in preference to any of the defendants, who rank only as daughter's daughters or persons of more remote decree. Both the Courts below held that since the plaintiff was not a legitimate son of Chinna Satyabhama, he cannot be considered under the Hindu Law as the daughter's son, and that he is therefore not entitled to the right and privileges of a daughter's son.

(2.) IT is admitted by both sides that the rights of parties are governed by Hindu Law, subject of course to any agreement that they may have entered into amongst themselves. The main question arising in this litigation is whether, if it were held that the plaintiff ranked as a daughter's son, he would have higher rights than a daughter's daughter. In the absence of authorities to the contrary, I have no doubt that when under the Hindu Law a daughter or a son is referred to, the law -givers have contemplated only a legitimate son or a legitimate daughter. Illegitimate children have no rights at all in succession except in two classes of cases -as far as I have seen from the authorities cited before me. One exception to the general rule that illegitimate children have no rights is the case of the illegitimate sons of a Sudra. That exception is based on a special text and the interpretation of that text has led to an extension of the rule, which enables the legitimate descendants of one of two illegitimate sons of a Sudra to inherit from the legitimate descendants of another illegitimate son of the same father. The second exception is that the illegitimate children of a common mother can inherit from one another and from their mother and their legitimate descendants can inherit from one another.

(3.) I very respectfully agree with the remarks of Wallace, J., in Viswanatha Mudali v. : AIR1926Mad289 where the learned Judges had to consider whether the legitimate descendants of one illegitimate son of a dancing girl could inherit from the legitimate descendants of another illegitimate son of the same dancing girl. At page 959, Wallace, J., said: