PEDDA RAMAPPA NAYANIVARU Vs. BANGARI SESHAMMA NAYANIVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises in an action brought by Bangari Seshamma against his half-brother, Pedda Ramappa, to recover possession of the important polliam of Bangari. Several points, which resulted in issues in the Courts below, have been disposed of in a manner which does not render them the subjects of appeal. The facts which relate to the question which alone has been argued before their Lordships are few. It appears that Ramadasappa was the poligar of this polliam. It had been for several centuries in his family, had been resumed by the Government, and had been restored to him, but nothing turns on that resumption and restoration. Ramadasappa married four wives; the first two wives died, without issue, before his marriage with his third and fourth wives. The marriage with Subbama, his third wife, and with Venkatamma, his fourth wife, took place on the same day. There is now no dispute that the marriage with Subbama was prior in point of time. The Appellant, Pedda Ramappa, is the son of the third wife; the Respondent, Seshamma, is the son of the fourth wife, Venkatamma, but was born before his half-brother, Ramappa. Ramappa had an elder brother of the whole blood, Chandrasekhara, also junior to Seshamma, who, upon his father's death in 1866, was put by the Government into possession of the polliam. He died in the year 1876, having retained possession during his lifetime. Upon his death, Ramappa, the Appellant, was put into possession, and thereupon the present action was brought by Seshamma. It is only necessary to mention Chandrasekhara in order to account for the possession between the death of Ramadasappa, the father, and the bringing of the action. It is conceded that this possession is not material to the question which arises in this case, that question being whether the Respondent, who was first-born son of Ramadasappa, though by the fourth wife, is entitled to succeed to the father's estate, in preference to the Appellant, who was born afterwards, his mother being the third and senior wife, and being, it was contended, in the same position as a first-married wife, by reason of the two former wives having died before her marriage.

(2.) THE general question as to the right of succession in the case of sons born of different wives was decided by this Committee in the case of Ramalakshmi Ammal v. Sivanantha Perumal Sethurayar 14 Moore's Ind. Ap. Ca. 570. It was there held that the elder-born son, though of the junior wife, was entitled to succeed in preference to the younger son born of the elder wife. In that case, however, the question as to the right of a son born of a first-married wife did not arise, for there the mothers were both junior wives, and the first-married wife was living at the time of the marriages of the two wives whose sons were disputing the inheritance. In the present case, the first two wives having died before the marriage of the third and fourth wives, it is contended that the third wife is in the position of a first or royal wife, and that her son is entitled to succeed in preference to elder-born sons of junior wives. Undoubtedly that question was left open by the decision of their Lordships in the case of Ramalakshmi Ammal. In that case it had been admitted, or was supposed to have been admitted, that in the case of a royal wife the rule might be different from what it would be in the case of wives who were all junior to her. Their Lordships had not to consider that question, and did not think it right to prejudice the decision of it by any premature determination ; in fact, the point was not argued. The High Court of Madras, from which the appeal came, and in which the admission had been made, had also declined to decide the point.

(3.) THE preference which has been given to the first-born son over his brothers, irrespective of the priority of the marriages of their mothers, mainly depends upon the religious rules which guide the Hindu community. It is said in the judgment in the case of Ramalakshmi Ammal "One great rule of religion binding upon every Hindu is the duty of having a son, not only for the sake of the spiritual benefits he obtains for himself by his birth, but because he thereby discharges the pious debt he owes to his ancestors, and as a consequence naturally flowing from this law the first-born son is throughout the books of authority treated as pre-eminent amongst his brothers, and held to be entitled to many special privileges." The principle deduced from the rule above mentioned, and the reasons upon which their Lordships' judgment in the former appeal are founded, apply with equal force to the first-born son of his father, whether born of a first-married wife or of a junior wife; and it certainly lies upon the Appellant to shew some explicit authority to establish the distinction for which he contends.