Case: Singhal Ajit Kumar &amp; Another Vs. Ujayarsingh And Others

accepted, we would be speaking in two voices. Once it is established that for the purpose of succession an illegitimate son of a Sudra has the status of a son and that he is entitled to succeed to his putative fathers entire self-acquired property in the absence of a son, widow, daughter or daughters son and to a share along with them, we cannot see any escape from the consequential and logical position that he shall be entitled to succeed to the other half share when succession opens after the widows 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 Maynes 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. ILR 55 Mad 856 : (AIR 1932 Mad 440 ). 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 High Court held that the daughters 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 (of ILR Mad): (at p. 444 of AIR) and it is:The principle underlying the doctrine of reverter referred to is that the last maleholders estate is inherited by females who have no free right to alienation and who hold a peculiar kind of estate called "womans estate and on whose death the then heir of the last male-holder succeeds to the last maleholders estate. From its very nature, the doctrine could not apply legitimately to a case where the last male-holders estate vested on his death no 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."The reason of the decision is therefore clear and that is when a daughters son succeeds to an estate, there is no further scope for the application of the doctrine of reverter. The learned Judges expressly left open the present question when they said, "We are not now concerned with the question as to what would become of the property if the last of the daughters died without leaving a daughters son, in such circumstances." This decision cannot, therefore, be invoked in support of the contention that in a case where the doctrine of reverter applied the illegitimate son is excluded from succession. On the other hand, the Nagpur High Court in Bhagwantrao v. Punjaram. ILR (1938 ) Nag 255: (AIR 1938 Nag 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.8. 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 would devolve not on Raja Ajit Singhs 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 Ramraghurai Singh in respect of his half share and, therefore, the fact 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 appellants case, for the Court of Wards admittedly managed only the widows limited estate and it is not the case of the appellant that the Court of Wards acquired on behalf of the widows an absolute interest in respect of the half share of Ramraghuraj Singh in the suit properties. The plaintiffs themselves claimed to be reversioners of Raja Ajit Singh on the ground that the succession to him opened out when the widows died; 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 widows estate and in respect of the other half share of Ramraghuraj Singh they acquired a right by adverse possession only to 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. 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 herregret our inability to accept this proposition, for, if accepted, we would be speaking in two voices. Once it is established that for the purpose of succession an illegitimate son of a Sudra has the status of a son and that he is entitled to succeed to his putative fathers entire self-acquired property in the absence of a son, widow, daughter or daughters son and to a share along with them, we cannot see any escape from the consequential and logical position that he shall be entitled to succeed to the other half share when succession opens after the widows 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 ofa reference to that judgment shows that no such proposition has been laid downdecision cannot, therefore, be invoked in support of the contention that in a case where the doctrine of reverter applied the illegitimate son is excluded fromtherefore, 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 Ajitthat learned counsel for the appellant was correct in his contention, we fail to see how the said legal position would advance the appellants case, for the Court of Wards admittedly managed only the widows limited estate and it is not the case of the appellant that the Court of Wards acquired on behalf of the widows an absolute interest in respect of the half share of Ramraghuraj Singh in the suit properties. The plaintiffs themselves claimed to be reversioners of Raja Ajit Singh on the ground that the succession to him opened out when the widows died; 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 widows estate and in respect of the other half share of Ramraghuraj Singh they acquired a right by adverse possession only to 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.