1941 (10) TMI 6 - Other - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Hindu Law: Illegitimate Sons Excluded from Estate Allowance

Raja Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Versus Raja Rajeswara Rao And Another

Raja Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Versus Raja Rajeswara Rao And Another - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of a deed dated 8th April 1889 entitling the plaintiffs to an allowance from the impartible estate.2. Claim of maintenance by the plaintiffs as junior members of the family under Hindu law.3. Examination of the plaintiffs' entitlement to maintenance from the impartible estate based on customary rights and legal principles.Analysis:1. The case involved the interpretation of a deed dated 8th April 1889, where the plaintiffs claimed entitlement to an allowance of &8377; 1000 per month from the impartible estate. The deed specified that male descendants (purusha santhathi) of Venugopal would receive the allowance after his death. The courts analyzed the deed's language and context, concluding that an illegitimate son does not qualify as an aurasa son under Hindu law, thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs' claim under the deed. The deed's provisions were deemed clear in determining the entitlement to the allowance, leading to the rejection of the plaintiffs' claim based on the deed.2. The plaintiffs also asserted a right to maintenance from the impartible estate as junior male members of the family under Hindu law. The defendant contested this claim, arguing that such rights exist only through custom and not inherently in law. Citing previous judicial decisions, the defendant maintained that without proof of a specific custom, the plaintiffs, not being legitimate sons or brothers of the estate holder, could not establish a right to maintenance. The courts considered the lineage of decisions on this matter, highlighting the necessity of proving a special custom to claim maintenance as a junior male member.3. Furthermore, the case delved into the broader question of whether junior male members of a family inherently possess a right to maintenance from an impartible estate. The plaintiffs argued that a recent judgment had recognized this right based on their status as co-owners within the family. However, the courts, in alignment with previous decisions, dismissed this argument, emphasizing the requirement for establishing a customary right to maintenance. The judgment acknowledged the complexity of the issue and praised the thorough analysis conducted by the lower courts but ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs, upholding the defendant's position. The appeal of the defendant was allowed, the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed, and the suit was rejected, with cost implications outlined for both parties.