RAMA RAJA THEVAR Vs. PAPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was the permanent mistress of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar, who was in receipt of Rs. 700 per mensem as a rent charge on, the estate of the Rajah of Ramnad. This sum of Rs. 700 has been erroneously described in various places as an annuity, perhaps for the reason that the liability to pay it accrues annually, but it is not strictly an annuity as it is not for the duration of any one life, but is a charge on the revenues of the estate of the Rajah of Ramnad in perpetuity. The right to the rent charge was established as against the Rajah of Ramnad in a suit brought by Ramamani Ammal, the mother of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar, which went up to the Privy Council. [Vide Rajah of Ramnad V/s. Sundara Pandiyasqmi Thevar (1918) ILR 43 M 581 : 36 MLJ 164 (PC).]. The right has been mortgaged to a Chetty who is not a party to the present suit. The plain-tiff claimed in this suit maintenance against the 1 defendant who was the assignee from a reversioner of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar's estate, and, the 1 defendant having died during suit, the claim was continued against his son, the 3 defendant. After Muthu Doraiswami Thevar's death, the plaintiff was responsible for other litigation before the present suit. There was a suit under the Specific Relief Act for possession of the bungalow in which she lives, and another suit for a declaration that she was a landlord in respect of certain villages which were in the possession of the deceased Muthu Doraiswami Thevar. In the first suit: she succeeded but she lost the second suit based on the footing that she was the wife and heir of Muthu Doraiswami Thevar.

(2.) Two questions have been argued in this appeal. Firstly, whether a concubine is entitled to maintenance against the estate of the man who kept her, and secondly, whether the rate of maintenance of Rs. 100 per mensem (with 12 years past maintenance) is a fair rate and one to which the plaintiff is entitled.

(3.) On the point of law as to the right of a permanent concubine for maintenance from the family property of her de-ceased paramour the leading decision in this Court is Panchapagesa Odayar V/s. Kanaka Ammal . But there are a number of decisions in the Bombay High Court, viz., Khemkor V/s. Umiashankar (1873) 10 Bom HCR 381; Vrandavandas Ramdas V/s. Yamunabai (1875) 12 Bom HCR 229; Yashavantrav V/s. Kashibai (1887) ILR 12 B 26; and Bai Monghibai V/s. Bai Nagubai (1922) ILR 47 B 401.