1. We see no reason for differing from the learned Judge who disbelieved the evidence of plaintiff's mother and their witness Subba Reddi as to the removal of the tali and the payment to her of Rs. 50, the parisam. The evidence of the two witnesses is insufficient to prove that there is a custom amongst the Vellalas which permits divorce. The decision in Veerasangappa v. Rudrappa I.L.R. (1885) Mad, 440 does not support the contention as it only decides that there is such a custom amongst the Lingayats. It is clear from the Full Bench decision in Soundarajan v. Arunachalam Chetti 29 M.L.J. 793 that before the illegitimate sons of a Sudra can succeed they must show that the connection between their parents was not adulterous. In the present case it is admitted that their mother was married to Veerasami Mudaly before she joined the deceased Venkata-chalam. It is argued that mere desertion by Veerasami of the plaintiff's mother and their separation for several years is sufficient to dissolve the marriage but there is no authority for holding that a marriage is severed by mere desertion.
2. Objection is taken to the rate of maintenance awarded. Having regard to the income of the properties and the claims of the various members of the family we think the rate allowed by the learned Judge is reasonable.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.