Sivagiri Estate
Case
Judgment by Madras
High Court in 1960
Subramania Iyer and
another v. Minor Sangili Veerappa.
Sivagiri Estate,
which was an impartible estate, was taken over by the Govt under Act 26 of 1948
i.e. the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948. The govt
had paid Rs.7,899/- as interim payment in 1957. At that time Varaguna Pandian
was the Zamindar of that estate.
From that amount,
it was the practice, the first to be paid to the creditors, then the maintenance
holders, and the reminder to the sharers.
The sharers were
the Zamindara, his legitimate sons, grandson and great grandsons. At the time
of taking over the estate, the Zamindar Varaguna Pandian had three sons, - two by
his first wife and one son by his second wife. Subsequent to the notification of
taking over, a son was born to the Zaminder through his second wife. Besides these,
the Zamindar had two illegitimate sons born through a continuously kept
concubine, Chellappapal.
Zamindar Varaguna
Pandian died on 16th August 1955. The two sons of the Zaminder, who
born of his first wife, had assigned their interest in the compensation amount
to one Subramania Iyer and one Muthusami Iyer.
On the death of
Zamindar, his share, being the separate property, will devolve on all his
heirs. They denied any amount to the illegitimate son of the Zamindar. But the
Tribunal held that the two illegitimate sons would be entitled to the share of
the Zamindar’s separate share.
Under the old
Hindu law, the coparceners are entitled to a share each. Thus the Zaminder, his
four legitimate sons, in total five persons are entitled to 1/5th
share each. Thus Zaminder had 1/5th share, which was his separte
property.
In the case of an
impartible estate (Zamin Estate) which had to be regarded as the property of a
joint Hindu family for the purpose of succession.
In the case of
Raja Jogendra v. Nityanand, (1890) LR 17 IA : ILR 18 Cal 151 (PC), the Zaminder
therein who belonged to Sudra community, died leaving a legitimate son as well
as illegitimate son. On the death of Zamindar, his legitimate son succeeded.
But he died issuelss. The question arose, whehter his father’s illegitimate son
could succeed to the impartible estate (Zamin). The Privy Council held that the
illegitimate son having survived the legitimate son would be entitled as a
coparcener to succeed to the family estate in such event.
The Supreme Court
held that on the death of the father, the illegitimate son succeeded as a
coparcener to the separate estate of his father along with the legitimate son
with a right of survivorship. (Gur Narain Das v. Gur Tahel Das (1952) 2 MLJ
251).
It was contended
that by reason of Sec.3 of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act 18 of 1937,
the illegitimate sons would have no rights in the property of Varaguna Pandian,
which should be deemed to be the joint family property and not the separate
property of the Zamindar. But this Act 1937 was intended to give better rights
to women and not the illegitimate sons.
The Madras High
Court in Vellayappa Chettiar v. Natarajan, (9131) 61 MLJ 522 held that a person
died as a member of coparcenary with his collaterals, the widow alone would get
her husband’s share but the illegtimate sond would not. That is because, the
illegitimate son is not a coparcener with the collaterals.
Therefore, in the
Zamindar’s separate share, the illegitimate sons would get half of what he
would get had he been a legitimate son.
**
No comments:
Post a Comment