1. In this case one Vedu had two sons: a legitimate son called Chindhu and an illegitimate son called Dhaklu. Chindhu died leaving a son named Zipru. Dhaklu died with out leaving any relations and it is with reference to the property of Dhaklu that the present suit is brought by Zipru to establish his claim as heir to Dhaklu.
2. It is established now, and in spite of the argument of the appellant to the contrary, it must be accepted that the illegitimate son of a Sudra cannot inherit the separate property of his father's legitimate son, as a brother. It is sufficient to refer to the decision in Dharma v. Sakharam I.L.R (1919) Bom. 185; 22 Bom. L.R. 52. in which the earlier decisions bearing on this point have been referred to. It has been argued that it does not follow necessarily from that decision that Zipru, the son of the legitimate son of the original ancestor, could not inherit the property of Dhaklu, the illegitimate son of Vedu. There is no authority on the question before us; but if the rule in Dharma v. Sahharam is to be consistently followed, I do not see how a, collateral could succeed to the property of an illegitimate son, when that son is not entitled to collateral succession. It necessarily follows that Zipru could not inherit the property of Dhaklu; and his claim to that property must fail.
3. The decree of the lower appellate Court is right and must be affirmed with costs
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
4. I agree.