RAMCHANDRA DODDAPPA NAIK Vs. HANAMNAIK DODNAIK PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendants in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that defendant No. 1, Ramchandra, was neither a legitimate nor an illegitimate son of one Doddappanaik and that he was not entitled to a share in the property of the said Doddappanaik, and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) The facts are shortly these : Doddappanaik was admittedly a Shudra. He had two wives, and one woman who was a Brahmin widow, named Gangava, was his mistress arid lived in a state of continuous concubinage with him. The plaintiffs are the legitimate son and nephews of Doddappanaik and defendant No. 1 is found to have been born of Gangava by Doddappanaik. The trial Court found that defendant No. 1 was an illegitimate son of Doddappanaik and as the latter was a Shudra, his mistress Gangava, though a Brahmin widow, became a Shudra by living with him, and that, therefore, defendant No. 1, being born of Shudra parents, was entitled to a share in Doddappanaik's property although he was an illegitimate son, as under the Hindu law, the illegitimate son of a Shudra is entitled as a dasiputra to a share of the inheritance, provided his mother was in the exclusive keeping of his father.

(3.) That decision has been reversed by the appellate Court and the learned Judge in appeal has discussed a number of ancient texts as well as authorities on this point and has come to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 was an illegitimate son of Doddappanaik, but he was not a dasiputra and therefore not entitled to a share in the inheritance, though he can claim maintenance from his father's estate . The ground of his decision is that a son of a Shudra by a Brahmin mistress is not dasiputra, which term is confined only to a son of a Shudra by a Shudra mistress.