KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Property given for maintenance to the illegitimate son of an undivided deceased co- parcener cannot be treated as the ancestral property of the illegitimate son in which the son of that illegitimate son gets a right by birth. Nagalingam Pillai v. Ramachandra Teven (1901) I.L.R. 24 Mad. 429 quoted by the appellant s learned vakil was the case of a gift by a father to his son of property which would have, but for the gift, on such descent, descended to the son and been ancestral property in the son s hands, the learned Judges holding that a father making such a gift might be presumed to have intended his son to take it as if the son had inherited it. Hazarimal Babu v. Abaninath (1913) 17 C.L.J., 38 was a case of gift again by a father for the maintenance of his sons and sons descendants.

(2.) Without expressing an opinion as to whether Nagalingam Pillai v. Ramachandra Teven (1901) I.L.R. 24 Mad. 429 was rightly decided, the two cases above noted are clearly distinguishable from the present case.

(3.) The lower Courts were therefore right in holding that the son of the illegitimate son did not obtain any right by birth in property given to his father for maintenance when that gift was not made by the father s father. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs, The petition put in by the respondent is also dismissed with costs.