NATARAJAN Vs. PMAMUTHIAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the minor plaintiffs suing by their mother and next friend for maintenance. The case for the plaintiffs is that their mother Chinnammal was, shortly after she attained puberty, kept by the 1 defendant who is a Nattukkottai Chetty continuously and exclusively as his concubine, that the 1 and 2nd plaintiffs are his illegitimate sons and the third plaintiff his illegitimate daughter. Maintenance is claimed at Rs. 500 a month for all the three plaintiffs. The suit was originally filed against the 1 defendant only, but he died pending suit and Defendants 2 to 5, his undivided uncles and uncles sons, have been brought on the record. The 1 defendant filed a written statement denying that the plaintiffs mother Chinnammal was continuously kept by him as concubine from 1901 to 1919. He states that Chinnammal was a dancing-girl who did not abandon her usual mode of life which was that of prostitution and that he used to visit her occasionally. He denies that the plaintiffs are his children by Chinnammal. He denies that he was at any time maintaining the plaintiff's or began neglecting them from July 1919. He admits that demands were made by the plaintiff's mother but denies his liability to maintain them. He denies that any charge can be created on the property mentioned in the plaint. He pleads that he belongs to the Nattukottai Chetty community and is a Vysia and that in any event, the claim for maintenance is excessive and that any maintenance that is granted can only be decreed till the plaintiffs attain majority. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement adopting the written statement of the 1 defendant and pleading in addition that the 1 defendant was a member of a joint undivided Hindu trading family possessed of considerable property, moveable and immovable, that he was not possessed of any separate property, that he died without leaving any issue, that his only son was adopted to his brother during his lifetime, that after the death of the 1 defendant all the family properties vested by survivorship in the other defendants and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as against the surviving coparceners. Defendants 3, 4, and 5 filed written statements adopting the statement of the 1 and 2nd defendants.

(2.) The following issues were settled: 1. Was Chinnammal kept continuously or exclusively by the 1st defendant as concubine? 2. Are the plaintiffs children of the 1 defendant by such continuous concubinage?

(3.) Is the defendant bound to pay any maintenance to the plaintiffs and is the said maintenance a charge on the family property as alleged in the plaint?