Jamma and anr. Vs. Ram Kali

Jamma and anr. vs Ram Kali

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 04, 1908

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/459701

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/459701
Court: Allahabad
Judge: John Stanley, C.J. and ;Banerji, J.
Decided On: Aug 04, 1908
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Act (Local) No. II of 1901 (Agra Tenancy Act), Section 22 - Occupancy holding--Succession--'Male lineal defendant'--Illegitimate son--Hindu law. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jamma and anr.

Respondent

Ram Kali

Legal References

Reported In: (1908)ILR30All508

Excerpt

act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 22 - occupancy holding--succession--'male lineal defendant'--illegitimate son--hindu law. - .....respondent, ghansham singh, who is the illegitimate and only son of one mahtab singh, deceased, by a concubine who had lived continuously with mahtab singh, is entitled to the occupancy holding of his father as a male lineal descendant within the meaning of that expression as used in section 22 of the agra tenancy act. the courts below have rightly held that mahtab singh belonged to the sudra caste.2. both the lower courts held that the plaintiff was so entitled. we think that their decision is right. in inderun valungypooly taver v. ramasawmy pandia talaver (1869) 13 moo. i.a. 141 their lordships of the privy council held that the illegitimate children of the sudra caste, in default of legitimate children inherit their putative father's estate. in sarasuti v. mannu (1879) i.l.r. 2 all. 134 pearson and oldfield, jj., held that the illegitimate offspring of a kept woman, or continuous concubine, amongst sudras, are on the same level as to inheritance as the issue of a female slave by a sudra, and that the illegitimate son of an ahir by a continuous concubine of the same caste took his father's estate in preference to the daughter of a legitimate son of his father who died in the father's life-time. in hargobind kuari v. dharam singh (1884) i.l.r. 6 all. 329 straight, o.c.j. and duthoit, j., held that, according to hindu law and usage, illegitimate sons are entitled to maintenance from their father, and his estate is liable for such payment. hindu law differs from the english law in so far that it does not treat an illegitimate son as filius nullius. his status as a son in the family is recognised and his right to maintenance secured to him.3. on the foregoing authorities, therefore, we think that it was rightly held in the courts below that the plaintiff ghansham singh is entitled, in the absence of a legitimate son, to the occupancy holding of his father as a male lineal descendant. we therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. The question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff respondent, Ghansham Singh, who is the illegitimate and only son of one Mahtab Singh, deceased, by a concubine who had lived continuously with Mahtab Singh, is entitled to the occupancy holding of his father as a male lineal descendant within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The Courts below have rightly held that Mahtab Singh belonged to the Sudra caste.

2. Both the lower Courts held that the plaintiff was so entitled. We think that their decision is right. In Inderun Valungypooly Taver v. Ramasawmy Pandia Talaver (1869) 13 Moo. I.A. 141 their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the illegitimate children of the Sudra caste, in default of legitimate children inherit their putative father's estate. In Sarasuti v. Mannu (1879) I.L.R. 2 All. 134 Pearson and Oldfield, JJ., held that the illegitimate offspring of a kept woman, or continuous concubine, amongst Sudras, are on the same level as to inheritance as the issue of a female slave by a Sudra, and that the illegitimate son of an ahir by a continuous concubine of the same caste took his father's estate in preference to the daughter of a legitimate son of his father who died in the father's life-time. In Hargobind Kuari v. Dharam Singh (1884) I.L.R. 6 All. 329 Straight, O.C.J. and Duthoit, J., held that, according to Hindu law and usage, illegitimate sons are entitled to maintenance from their father, and his estate is liable for such payment. Hindu law differs from the English law in so far that it does not treat an illegitimate son as filius nullius. His status as a son in the family is recognised and his right to maintenance secured to him.

3. On the foregoing authorities, therefore, we think that it was rightly held in the Courts below that the plaintiff Ghansham Singh is entitled, in the absence of a legitimate son, to the occupancy holding of his father as a male lineal descendant. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

Same Parties Jamma and anr. vs Ram Kali Same Subject Civil Same Judge John Stanley, C.J. and ;Banerji, J.

Civil