Skip to content


Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. Kylasa Mudaliar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)2MLJ89
AppellantSubbaraya Mudaliar
RespondentKylasa Mudaliar and ors.
Cases ReferredChelikani Tirupati Rayaningaru v. Rajah Suraneni Vencata Gopala Narasimha Rau Bahadur
Excerpt:
- - 8 m 107; as to the other condition requisite to make the plaintiff a bandhu there is no doubt, for clearly he is sprung from a different family......hindu law, section 492, see chelikani tirupati rayaningaru v. rajah suraneni vencata gopala narasimha rau bahadur 6 m. h. c. r. 278). the observation of muthusami aiyar j. in i.l.r.8 m 107, seems to show that in his opinion the right of the stepsister's son must be recognised. for these reasons we are of opinion that the judgment of the district judge must be reversed and the suit remanded for trial. costs to abide the event.
Judgment:

1. The question is whether the plaintiff whose mother is found to have been the step-sister of Ramasami Mudaliar now deceased stands in the line of inheritance to him.

2. If he were the son of Ramasami's sister of the full blood, there can be no doubt that he would be so entitled, being a bandhu of the deceased. But it has been argued that a step-sister's son does not stand on the same footing as a sister's son, and with regard to the cases cited, it is said that they are of no authority in this Presidency.

3. Apart from the cases we are of opinion that the position of the step-sister's son cannot be distinguished from that of the sister's son. The relationship between the maternal uncle and his sister's son or step-sisters's son is alike that of sapindas, for in both cases there is a common grandfather and ' the relation of sapindas arises from connection of parts of one body.' See Mitakshara cited in Amrita Kumari Debi v. Lakhinarayan Chuckerbutty 2 B. L. E. 28, Mari v. Chinnammal I. L. R. 8 M 107; As to the other condition requisite to make the plaintiff a bandhu there is no doubt, for clearly he is sprung from a different family. It was contended that the decision in I. L. R. 8 M 107, with reference to the position of the step-mother was adverse to the present claim. But that contention is answered by the observation that the exclusion of a woman in no way involves the exclusion of her offspring. There are several cases in which the children have rights which their mothers would not have, (Mayne's Hindu Law, Section 492, see Chelikani Tirupati Rayaningaru v. Rajah Suraneni Vencata Gopala Narasimha Rau Bahadur 6 M. H. C. R. 278). The observation of Muthusami Aiyar J. in I.L.R.8 M 107, seems to show that in his opinion the right of the stepsister's son must be recognised. For these reasons we are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge must be reversed and the suit remanded for trial. Costs to abide the event.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //