RACHAKONDA VENKATA VEERARAGHAVAYYA Vs. PINAPALA SREENIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, Ankadasu, claiming that he was the reversioner to the estate of the last male holder, Venkataswami, and challenging the alienation of Venkataswami's properties by his widow, Venkatalakshmamma, in favour of the father of defendants 2 to 4 on 12 September, 1908, under Ex. IV, on the ground that the alienation was not supported by necessity. The last male holder, Venkataswami, died nearly sixty years ago, and his widow, Venkatalakshmamma, died in 1933.

(2.) The relationship between the plaintiff and the last male holder is given in the genealogical tree appended to the plaint. Venkataswami's father was Viyyanna; his brother was Buchanna. Buchanna had a son called Sri Ramulu who had a daughter named Bhavani. The plaintiff was the son of Bhavani. The defendants contended that Bhavani was not the natural daughter of Sri Ramulu, but only an adopted daughter. This plea was negatived by the District Munsiffand the finding was accepted by the Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the plaintiff would be the heir of Venkataswami in the absence of nearer heirs, but the trouble in his way is that his mother was admittedly unmarried and was leading the life of a prostitute. He is an illegitimate son of Bhavani. Could he succeed as heir collaterally, is the question to be decided. The Subordinate Judge has held in plaintiff's favour; hence this second appeal by defendants 2 and 4.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge says on the strength of the decisions in Viswanatha Mudali v. Duraiswami Mudali , Narayan Pundalikv. Lakshman Daji (1987) I.L.R. 51 Bom. 784 and Dattatraya Tatya Khurd V/s. Matha Bala Jasud (1933) I.L.R.58 Bom. 119 that as Bhavani had heritable blood and could inherit the properties of Venkataswami, there was no reason why her son, though not born of lawful wedlock, should not so inherit. The cases relied on by him are, however, no authorities for the view he has taken. All of them deal with succession as between legitimate issue or as between illegitimate children of the same mother or father. The learned Judges in Viswanatha Mudali V/s. Duraiswami Mudali were dealing with the case of a claim by the legitimate grandsons of a man called Muthuswami Mudali to the property of one Murugesa Mudali who was the legitimate great grandson of Muniappa Mudali. Muthuswami Mudali and Muniappa Mudali were the sons of a dancing woman called Thanji Animal. It was decided that Muthuswami Mudali and Muniappa Mudali had heritable blood as between them as they were the children of the same mother; and their descendants can also be said to have heritable blood between them. Varadachariar, J., has expressed in Ratna Mudaliar V/s. Krishnan Mudaliar some doubts about the correctness of the reasoning in this case but it is not necessary for us to pursue the matter further, as the descendants were the legitimate descendants, and there was no claim by an illegitimate descendant (like the plaintiff here) to the property of a sapinda of his maternal grandfather. In Narayan Pundalik V/s. Lakshman Daji (1987) I.L.R. 51 Bom. 784 the question arose whether the sister of a prostitute could succeed to the prostitute's property and take it before the Crown, and Patkar, J., upheld her claim on the analogy furnished by Hindu law as regards the sapinda relationship between heirs. What he stated was " the analogies of Hindu law are applied to a prostitute's mother, the daughters- are the sapindas of the mother as the particles of the mother's body abound in them and they are sapindas of each other because they are connected with each other through one body of the mother." Dattatraya Tatya Khurd V/s. Matha Bala Jasud 3 was again a case where the question of succession was raised as between the illegitimate children of the same parents. The existence of heritable blood between a woman and her own illegitimate offspring recognised in Mayna Bai V/s. Uttaram (1864) 2 M.H.C.R. 196 is referred to and the passage quoted is: They are the Hindu sons of a woman, who was a woman of a class lower than the fourth of Manu's classes, and in this case the sons are cognates to her and to one another, as the children of a class not twice born out of wedlock, and entitled to inherit to their mother.