# SINGHAI AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER v. UJAYARSINGH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 347
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 462 of 1957
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/singhai-ajit-kumar-another-v-ujayarsingh-and-others-2129
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Hindu Law-Sudras-Inheritence-Self-acquired property of
father-Illegitimate son and widow inheriting half share eachWidow dying-Illegitimate son, if entitled to succeed to widow's
half.
A Sudra Hindu died leaving two widows and an illegitimate
son by a continuously and exclusively kept concubine. The son
succeeded to a moiety of the estate and the widows succeeded to
the other moiety. The widows died without leaving any daughter
or daughter's son. The reversioners filed a suit for recovery of
possession of the estate. The illegitimate son contended that on
the death of his father he was entitled to succeed to half the
estate the other going to the widows and that on the death of
the widows he was entitled to the half share held by them.
Held, that the illegitimate son succeeded to half the estate
upon the death of the father and succeeded to the other half on
the death of the widows.
An illegitimate son has the status of
a son under the Hindu Law; but he has no rights by birth and
cannot claim partition during his father's lifetime. On the
father's death he takes his father's self-acquired property along
with the legitimate son and in case the legitimate son dies, he
takes the entire property by survivorship. If there is no legitimate son, he would be entitled only to a half share when there
is a widow, daughter or daughter's son of the last male holder.
In the absence of any one of these three heirs, he succeeds to the
entire state. If the widow succeeds to half the estate, upon her
death succession again opens to half the estate of the last male
P. V.
BheeJnsena Rao
v.
Sirigiri Pidda
Yella Reddi
& Others
Wanchoo ].
MaYch z6.
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r961
holder held by her and the illegitimate son, who has the status
of a son, bas a preferential claim over all other reversioners.
Singhai Ajit
Raja Jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun Mahapatra v. NityaKumar & Another nund Mansingh, (18qo) L.R. 17 I.A. 128, Kamulammal v.
v.
Visvanathaswami Naicker, (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 32 and Vallaiyappa
Ujayarsingh
Chetty v. Natarajan, (1931) I.L.R. 55 Mad. l, referred to.
~ Others
Karuppayee Ammal v. Ramaswami, (1932) I.L.R. 55 Mad.
856, distinguished.
Bhagwantrao v. Punjaram, I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 255, approved.

## Text

L
..
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
347
is meant for charity and does not include personal inams burdened with service, is correct. Such
inams would continue to be dealt with under B.S.O.
54,, class (b) as introduced by the amendment to that
Order. In this view, there is no force in this appeal
and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
SINGHAI AJIT KUMAR & ANOTHER
v.
UJAYARSINGH AND OTHERS
(K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Hindu Law-Sudras-Inheritence-Self-acquired property of
father-Illegitimate son and widow inheriting half share eachWidow dying-Illegitimate son, if entitled to succeed to widow's
half.
A Sudra Hindu died leaving two widows and an illegitimate
son by a continuously and exclusively kept concubine. The son
succeeded to a moiety of the estate and the widows succeeded to
the other moiety. The widows died without leaving any daughter
or daughter's son. The reversioners filed a suit for recovery of
possession of the estate. The illegitimate son contended that on
the death of his father he was entitled to succeed to half the
estate the other going to the widows and that on the death of
the widows he was entitled to the half share held by them.
Held, that the illegitimate son succeeded to half the estate
upon the death of the father and succeeded to the other half on
the death of the widows.
An illegitimate son has the status of
a son under the Hindu Law; but he has no rights by birth and
cannot claim partition during his father's lifetime. On the
father's death he takes his father's self-acquired property along
with the legitimate son and in case the legitimate son dies, he
takes the entire property by survivorship. If there is no legitimate son, he would be entitled only to a half share when there
is a widow, daughter or daughter's son of the last male holder.
In the absence of any one of these three heirs, he succeeds to the
entire state. If the widow succeeds to half the estate, upon her
death succession again opens to half the estate of the last male
P. V.
BheeJnsena Rao
v.
Sirigiri Pidda
Yella Reddi
& Others
Wanchoo ].
MaYch z6.
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r961
holder held by her and the illegitimate son, who has the status
of a son, bas a preferential claim over all other reversioners.
Singhai Ajit
Raja Jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun Mahapatra v. NityaKumar & Another nund Mansingh, (18qo) L.R. 17 I.A. 128, Kamulammal v.
v.
Visvanathaswami Naicker, (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 32 and Vallaiyappa
Ujayarsingh
Chetty v. Natarajan, (1931) I.L.R. 55 Mad. l, referred to.
~ Others
Karuppayee Ammal v. Ramaswami, (1932) I.L.R. 55 Mad.
856, distinguished.
Bhagwantrao v. Punjaram, I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 255, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
462 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated April 18, 1952, of the former Nagpur High
Court in First Appeal No. 88 of 1942.
0. B. Agarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant
No. 1.
Har Dayal Hardy and N. N. Keswani, for respondent No. 1.
1961.
March 16.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Subba Rao J.
SUBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment and decree of the High
of Judicature at Nagpur confirming the judgment of
the 2nd Additional District Judge, J aha! pur, in Civil
Suit No. 9-A of 1942, filed by respondents 2 to 7 herein claiming to be the reversioners of the estate of one
Raja Ajitsingh. Ajit Singh was the. Raja of Saliya
Estate consisting of 73 villages and other property
situate in J abalpur and Saugor Districts. Ajit Singh
died on January 2, 1910, leaving behind him two
widows named Rani Khuman Kuar and Rani Anant
Kuar and an illegitimate son 'named Ramraghuraj
Singh. Rani Anant Kuar died in or about 1914 and
Rani Khuman Kuar passed away on February 1, 1922.
After the death of Raja Ajit Singh, the Estate was
taken over by the Court of Wards on behalf of the
widows in the year 1913 and remained in its possession till March 27, 1923. After the death of Rani
Khuman Kuar, the local Government issued a notification recognizing Ramraghuraj Singh as the successor to the Estate; but, for one reason or other, the
•
,
. ,
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
349
Court of Wards continued to manage the Estate on
i96r
his behalf from September 23, 1923. Ramraghuraj
5 .
h . A ..
Singh died on April 23, 1932, and on hi~ death the Ku~~;;: A~;:her
first respondent, the son of Ramraghura3 Singh, was
v.
declared as the ward of the Court of Wards which
Ujaya,,ingh
continued to manage the Estate on his behalf. Res-
& Others
pondents 2 to 6, claiming to be the reversioners to the
Estate of Raja Ajit Singh, filed a suit on June 15,
Subba Rao f.
1935, for recovery of possession of the Estate. Appellants 1 and 2 are alleged to be the assignees pendente
lite of the interest of the alleged reversioners.
The plaintiffs averred that Ramraghuraj Singh was
the son of one Jhutti by her husband one Sukhai and
that as Raja Ajit Singh had no issue, he and the
Ranies treated the boy as their son, that the Lodhi
community to which Raja Ajit Singh belonged was
not a sudra caste and that, therefore, even if Ramraghuraj Singh was the illegitimate son of Raja Ajit
Singh, he was not entitled to a share, and that in any
view half of the share of the widows in the Estate
would devolve, on their death, on the reversioners to
the exclusion of the illegitimate son. They further
pleaded that the possession of the Court of Wards of
the entire Estate from January 2, 1910 to February
1, 1922, was adverse to the illegitimate son and, therefore, he lost his title, if any, to the said Estate. The
case of the first respondent was that Raja Ajit Singh
belonged to the sudra caste, that Ramraghuraj Singh
was the son of the said Raja by a continuously and
exclusively kept concubine named Raj Dulari, that
the widows never questioned the right of Ramraghu·-
raj Singh to a share in the property of Raja Ajit
Singh, that therefore there was no scope for the plea
of adverse possession, and that, after the death of the
widows, the succession to the Estate of Raja Ajit Singh
in respect of one half share opened out and the illegitimate son, he being the nearest heir, succeeded to that
share also.
The trial court as well as the High Court concurrently gave the following findings: (1) Raja Ajit Singh
belonged to the sudra caste; (2) Raja Raghuraj Singh
was the son of Raja Ajit Singh by a continuously and
'
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
1961
exclusively kept concubine by name Raj Dulari, who
Singhai Ajit
had passed into the concubinage of Raja Ajit Singh
Kumar <>-Another after the death of her husband; (3) as the illegitimate
v.
son of Raja Ajit Singh, Ramraghuraj Singh succeedUjayarsingh
ed to a moiety of the Estate of his putative father
cf>. Others
and the two widows of Raja Ajit Singh succeeded to
Subba Rao J. the other moiety of his Estate; (4) as there was no
daughter or daughter's son, after the death of the
widows, Ramraghuraj Singh, being the sole surviving
heir of his putative father, inherited a moiety of the
Estate which was held by the widows during their
lifetime; (5) Ramraghuraj Singh was all along in joint
possession of the Estate with the widows, and, although the Court of Wards had assumed superintendence on behalf of the Ranies, he was not out of
possession during their lifetime and as such his title
could not be extinguished by adverse possession; (6) the
plaintiffs' suit was barred under s. 26 of the Central
Provinces Court of Wards Act; and (7) the plaintiffs'
claim was barred by limitation.
While the trial court held that it had not been established that the plaintiffs were the reversioners of
Raja Ajit Singh, the High Court held that it had been
proved. In the result the trial court dismissed the
suit and, on appeal, the High Court confirmed it.
The 2nd appellant died and his legal representatives
were not brought on record and the appeal so far as
the 2nd appellant is concerned has abated. The 1st
appellant alone proceeded with the appeal.
It is the usual practice of this Court to accept the
concurrent findings of the courts below. There are no
exceptional circumstances in this case, at any rate
none was brought to our notice, to compel us to
depart from the usual practice. We, therefore, accept
the concurrent findings, namely, that Raja Ajit Singh
was a member of the sudra caste and that Ramraghuraj Singh was the son of Raja Ajit Singh by a continuously and exclusively kept concubine named Raj
Dulari, who passed into his concubinage after the
death of her husband.
The main question that arises in this appeal is whether an illegitimate son of a sudra vis-a-vis his selfacquired property, after having succeeded to a half
.t
•.
. '"I
•
•
..
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
351
share of his putative father's estate, will be entitled to
~~
succeed to the other half share got by the widow,
Singhai Ajit
after the succession opened out to his putative father Kumar &- Another
on the death of the said widow. The answer to the
v.
question depends upon the content of the right of an
Ujayarsingh
illegitimate son to succeed to the self-acquired pro6 ' Others
perty of his putative father. The source of his right Subba Rao J.
is found in the relevant Hindu Law texts. Mitakshara in explanation of the texts of Manu and Y ajnavalkya says in Chapter I, s. 12 in the following three
verses thus:
"l. The author next delivers a special rule concerning the partition of a Sudra's goods.
'Even a
son begotten by a Sudra on a female slave may
take a share by the father's choice.
But, if the
father be dead, the brethren should make him partaker of the moiety of a share: and one, who has no
brothers, may inherit the whole property, in default
of daughter's sons'.
2.
The son, begotten by a Sudra on a female
slave, obtains a share by the father's choice, or at
his pleasure. But, after the demise of the father,
if there be sons of a wedded wife, let these brothers
allow the son of the female slave to participate for
half a share: that is, let them give him half
as much as is the amount of one brother's allotment. However, should there be no sons of a wedded wife, the son of the female slave takes the
whole estate, provided there be no daughters of a
wife, nor sons of daughters. But, if there be such,
the son of the female slave participates for half a
share only.
3. From the mention of a Sudra in this place it
follows that the son begotten by a man of a regenerate tribe on a female slave, does not obtain a share
even by the father's choice, nor the whole estate
after his demise.
But, if he be docile, he receives
a sim pie maintenance."
No mention of a widow is found in the above verses,
but in Dattaka Chandrika, the author says in V .
30, 31 thus:
"If any, even in the series of heirs down to the
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
z96z
daughter's son, exist, the son by a female slave
Singhai Ajit
does not take the whole estate, but on the contrary
Kumar & Another
shares equally with such heir."
v.
The leading decision on the rights of an illegitimate
Ujayarsingh
son is that of the Judicial Committee in Ra;,a Jogendra
& Othe1-s
J
Bhupati Hurri Ghundun Mahapatra v. Nityanund
subba Rao J .. Mansingh (1).
There, one Raja died leaving behind
him a legitimate son and an illegitimate son. On the
death of the legitimate son, who had succeeded to the
Raja, it was held that the illegitimate son succeeded
to him by survivorship. Sir Richard Couch cited two
verses from Mitakshara Chapter I, section 12.
We
have already extracted the said verses. Commenting
upon these verses, the learned Judge observed at
p. 132 thus:
"Now it is observable that the first verse shews
that during the lifetime of the father the law leaves
the son to take a share by his father's choice, and it
cannot be said that at his birth he acquires any
right to share in the estate in the same way as a
legitimate son would do.
But the language there is
very distinct, that "if the father be dead t'he brethren should make him partaker of the moiety of a
share". So in the second verse the words are that
the brothers are to allow him to participate for half
a share, and later on there is the same expression:
"The son of the female slave participates for half a
share only"."
On that interpretation, he accepted the view of the
Bombay High Court and held that an illegitimate son
and a legitimate son, being members. of an undivided
Hindu family governed by Mitakshara, the illegitimate son becomes entitled to the whole of the immoveable property of the family if the legitimate son
dies without any male issue.
The Judicial Committee again considered the right of an illegitimate
son in Kamulammal v. Visvanatltaswami Naicker (').
There it was held that in a competition between a
widow and an illegitimate son to the property of his
putative father, the illegitimate son takes half of the
(1) (1890) L.R. 17 LA. 128.
(2) (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 32.
.. '
•
,,-- ) ,
..
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
353
property and the widow the other half. Sir Lawrence
'96'
Jenkins observed at p. 37 thus:
Singhai Ajit
"Here the contest is between the illegitimate son Kumar & Another
and the widow, and though the widow is not named
v.
in the text it is well settled that as a preferential
Ujayarsingh
heir to the daughter's son she is included among
& Others
those who share with the illegitimate son, and it Subba Rao 1.
would serve no useful purpose to speculate why she
was not mentioned in the text."
The status of the illegitimate son was subject of
further scrutiny by the Privy Council in Vellaiyappa
Chetty v. Natarajan ('). There the question arose in
the context of an illegitimate son's right to maintenance from a joint family property after the death of
his father who left no separate property. The Judicial
Committee held that he was entitled as a member of
the family to maintenance out of the joint family
property in the hands of the collaterals with whom
the father was joint. In dealing with the question of
status of an illegitimate son, Sir Dinshah Mulla, speaking for the Court, after considering the relevant Hindu
Law texts and decisions, arrived at the following conclusion at p. 15:
"On a consideration of the texts and the cases on
the subject their Lordships are of opinion tr,at the
illegitimate son of a Sudra by a ·continuous concubine
has the status of a son, and that he is a member of
the family; that the share of inheritance given to
him is not merely in lieu of maintenance, but in
recognition of his status as a son; ............... ".
It is not necessary to multiply decisions.
The law
pertaining to the right of inheritance of an illegitimate
son to his putative father's self-acquired property may
be stated thus: An illegitimate son has the status of
a son under the Hindu Law and he is a member of
the family.
But his rights are limited compared to
those of a son born in wedlock.
He has no right by
birth and, therefore, he cannot demand partition
during his father's lifetime. During the lifetime of
his father, the law allows the illegitimate son to take
(1) (<931) I.L.R. 55 Mad. J,
45
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r961
only such share as his father may give him. But on
S. --:-
..
his father's death, he takes his father's self-acquired
inghai Apt
1
. h th 1 •t•
t
d .
th
Kuma. <>·Another property a ong wit
e eg1 1ma e son an m case
e
v.
legitimate son dies, he takes the entire property by
Ujaya,,ingh
survivorship. Even if there is no legitimate son, the
"' Others,
illegitimate son would be entitled to a moiety only of
his father's estate when there is a widow, daughter or
Subba Rao J. daughter's son of the last male holder. In the absence
of any one of the three heirR, he succeeds to the entire
estate of his father. From the premises it follows that
an illegitimate son, except to the extent circumscribed
by the Hindu Law texts, has the status of a son and
is heir to the self-acquired property of his putative
father. If that be his undoubted right under the
Hindu Law, on what principle can he be deprived of
his right of succession to the other moiety of his
father's property after the death of the widow? Under
the Hindu Law, the death of the widow opens inheritance to the reversioners and the nearest heir at the
time to the last full owner becomes entitled to possession.
When the succession opens, in a competition
between an illegitimate son and other reversioners,
the illegitimate son is certainly a nearer heir to the
last male holder than the other .reversioners. If he
was the nearest heir only yielding half a share to the
widow at the time of the death of his putative father,
how does he cease to be one by the intervention of the ,
widow's estate?
As on the death of the widow the
estate reverts back to the last male holder, the succession shall be traced to him, and, if so traced, the
illegitimate son has a preferential claim over all other
reversioners.
In Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th edn., this
position has been controverted in the following manner
at p. 637:
"The illegitimate son, though he inherits on the
death of his putative father, along with or in default
of male issue, widow or daughter, cannot come in
as a reversionary heir on the death of the widow or
daughter, as he is undoubtedly neither a sagotra
nor a bhinnagotra sa pinda of the last male-holder
within the text of Manu."
We regret our inability to accept this proposition,
'
..... -- ."}.
..
• •
..
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
355
b
•
•
I96T
for, if accepted, we would
e speaking m two vmces.
_
Once it is established that. for the purpose of succesSinghai Ajit
sion an illegitimate son of a Sudra has the status of a Kumar & Another
son and that he is entitled to succeed to his putative
v.
father's entire self-acquired property in the absence of
Ujayarsingh
a son, widow, daughter or daughter's son and to a
'"' Others
share along with them, we cannot see any escape from
Subba 1100 J.
the consequential and logical position that he shall be
entitled to succeed to the other half share when succession opens after the widow's death. The intervention
of the widow only postpones the opening of succession
to the extent of half share but it cannot divert the
succession through a different channel, for she cannot
constitute herself a new stock of descent. The opinion
expressed in Mayne's Hindu Law is sought to be supported by the author by reference to a decision of the
Madras High Court in Karuppayee Ammal v. Ramaswami (1).
But a reference to that judgment shows
that no such proposition has been laid down therein.
There the facts were that on the death of a sudra, the
last male owner of an estate, his widow succeeded to
a moiety thereof and his illegitimate son to the other
moiety; the widow then died leaving behind her a son
of the daughter of the last male owner and the illegitimate son above mentioned. The Madras Hi~ Court
held that the daughter's son was entitled to the moiety
that had vested in the widow and the illegitimate son
was not entitled to any portion thereof. The reason
for that conclusion is found at p. 868 and it is:
"The principle underlying the doctrine of reverter referred to is that the last male-holder's estate
is inherited by females who have no free right of
alienation and who hold a peculiar kind of estate
called "woman's estate" and on whose death the
then heir of the last male-holder succeeds to the
last male-holder's estate. From its very nature, the
doctrine could not apply legitimately to a case where
the last male-holder's estate vested on his death not
in a female heir but in a male heir also. In such a
case, the doctrine as such would not strictly apply,
nor has it been, so far as we are aware, applied to
such a case."
(I) {I932) I.L.R. 55 Mad. 856.
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96r
The reason of the decision is therefore clear and that
Singhai Ajit
is when a daughter's son succeeds to an estate, there
Kumar & Anoth" is no further scope for the application of the doctrine
v.
of reverter. The learned Judges expressly left open
Ujaya,.ingh
the present question when they said, "We are not
& Others
now concerned with the question as to what would
S bb
become of the property if the last of the daughters
u a Rao J. died without leaving a daughter's son, in such circumstances". This decision cannot, therefore, be invoked
in support of the contention that in a case where the
doctrine of reverter applies the illegitimate son is
excluded from succession. On the other hand, the
Nagpur High Court in Bhagwantrao v. Punjaram (1)
rightly came to the conclusion that where on a partition between a legitimate and an illegitimate son, the
widow was allotted a share, on her death the illegitimate son was entitled to a share in the property. We,
therefore, hold that on the death of the widow, the
illegitimate son, the father of the first respondent
herein, succeeded to the other half share of the estate
of his putative father Raja Ajit Singh.
It is next contended that the widows acquired
an absolute interest in the estate of Raja Ajit
Singh by adverse possession and, therefore, the property· }"Ould devolve not on Raja Ajit Singh's heirs
·but on the heirs of the widows. On the question
of adverse possession also, both the courts below have
held against the appellant. But learned counsel argued that in the circumstances of this case the said finding was a mixed question of fact and law. It was
said that the courts below missed the point that the
Court of Wards, representing the widows, held the
Estate adversely to Ramraghuraj Singh in respect of
his half share and, therefore, the f;wt that during its
management the widows did not deny the title of
Ramraghuraj Singh or the fact that they admitted his
title could not affect the question of adverse possession. Assuming that learned counsel for the appellant
was correct in his contention, we fail to see how the
said legal position would advance the appellant's case,
for the Court of Wards admittedly managed only the
(1) I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 255.
•
•
I '
I' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
357
widows' limited estate and it is not the case of the
'96'
appellant that the Court of Wards acquired on behalf
Singhai Ajit
of the widows an absolute interest in respect of the Kumar o;. Another
half share of Ramraghuraj Singh in the suit properv.
ties. The plaintiffs themselves claimed to be reverUjayarsingh
sioners of Raja Ajit Singh on the ground that the
'"' Othm
succession to him opened out when the widows died;
subba Rao J.
and if their contention be accepted, namely, that the
widows acquired an absolute interest in half of the
property, they would be non-suited in respect thereof
on the simple ground that their suit was not to recover
the property as the heirs of the widows.
But, as we
have pointed out, the widows would have acquired a
title by adverse possession in respect of the share of
Ramraghuraj Singh only in their capacity as owners
of a limited estate i.e., in regard to their half share
they held it as widow's estate and in respect of the
other half.share of Ramraghuraj Singh they acquired /
a right by adverse possession only a limited estate
therein. The result would be, when the widows died
the succession to the estate of Raja Ajit Singh would
open out and the illegitimate son, as the nearest heir,
would succeed to the entire estate. We, therefore,
reject this contention.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The
respondent will not get any costs as the Advocate
for the respondent is absent in the Court when the
judgment is being delivered.
Appeal dismissed.