P M A M VELLAIYAPPA CHETTY Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a suit by certain minor plaintiffs represented by their mother Chin- nammal as their next friend for maintenance against the 1 st defendant in the first instance. The learned Judge on the Original Side has given a decree to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 100 a month for each of the two boys, the first two plaintiffs, for their lifetime and Rs. 50 a month to the girl, the 3 plaintiff, till she attains the age of 18. The appeal is against this decree by defendants 2 to 5.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that they are the sons of the 1 defendant by their mother Chinnammal who was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of the 1 defendant, Muthiah Chetty, and that as Sudras they are entitled to at least a right of maintenance against their putative father. Muthiah Chetty died after filing the written statement in which he denied that these plaintiffs were his children. He also denied that Chinnammal was a continuously and exclusively kept concubine of his, though he admitted that he used to visit her occasionally as a dancing girl, Chinnammal being a member of the dancing girl caste. Defendants 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives, they being the coparceners in the joint family to which Muthiah Chetty belonged. The real question now is whether the plaintiffs can claim any maintenance against the joint family property in the hands of the defendants assuming that they were the sons of Muthiah Chetty. The issues framed in the case are set out on the 5 page of the printed book, Part 1, and are as follows: (i). Was Chinnammal kept continuously or exclusively by the defendant as concubine?.... (ii) Are the plaintiffs the children of the defendant by such continuous concubinage? (iii) 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? (iv) Is the defendant a Vysia, and if so, are plaintiffs entitled to maintenance beyond the period of their majority? (v) What maintenance, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to?

(3.) No alteration was made in the form of these issues on account of the defendants 2 to 5 coming on record.