Mothey Anja Ratna Raja Kumar vs Koney Narayana Rao And Ors.

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 23 November, 1951

Coram: Fazl Ali

In this matter, the Supreme Court considered two appeals that arose from a suit originally filed by Koney Narayana Rao together with three other individuals, who were respondents in Appeal No 26 and appellants in Appeal No 27; for convenience they are referred to as “the plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs sued the now-deceased Ganga Raju and his adopted son Mothey Anja Ratna Raja Kumar, who was the appellant in Appeal No 26 and the respondent in Appeal No 27. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the illegitimate sons of Ganga Raju and sought maintenance at a rate of four hundred rupees per month for each of them, to be charged against the joint family property belonging to Ganga Raju. Both the District Judge of West Godavari, who tried the suit, and the Madras High Court concluded that the plaintiffs were indeed the illegitimate sons of Ganga Raju and that they were entitled to maintenance. The trial court initially decreed maintenance of one hundred rupees per month for each plaintiff, but the High Court subsequently enhanced that amount to two hundred rupees per month. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decree, both parties filed appeals before this Court challenging the amount of maintenance fixed by the appellate court.

The principal issue before the Court was the appropriate quantum of maintenance. During oral arguments it was asserted that, among the regenerate classes, an illegitimate son could not claim maintenance as a matter of right and could receive only a compassionate allowance. That contention was based on observations in the Madras High Court decision reported as Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachellam Chetti, 27 Mad 32, although the term “compassionate allowance” was never employed by the judges in that case; they merely spoke of a “compassionate rate of maintenance.” The Court deemed even that expression somewhat unsuitable and referred to the precedent set in Ananthaya v. Vishnu, 17 Mad 160, where it was held that under Mitakshara law an illegitimate son is entitled to maintenance for the duration of his life, recognizing his status as a member of his father’s family and his exclusion from inheritance among the regenerate classes. Turning to the determination of the maintenance rate, it was undisputed that Ganga Raju had accumulated a substantial estate comprising agricultural lands, houses, estate villages and other assets, and had also made large-scale investments. Evidence indicated that during his lifetime he had spent significant sums on the plaintiffs in an effort to establish them in respectable livelihoods, although the various business ventures undertaken on their behalf did not yield profitable results. This background was relevant because the courts below needed to assess the actual income that could be derived from Ganga Raju’s properties, as that income formed the principal factor in fixing an appropriate maintenance amount for the plaintiffs.

The Court observed that investments made by Ganga Raju on the plaintiffs’ account in various businesses had not borne fruit. However, that matter related to past history, and both the trial Court and the High Court were correct in focusing on determining the exact amount of income generated from Ganga Raju’s properties because that income was the principal factor for fixing the rate of maintenance to be paid to the plaintiffs. The trial Court had estimated the annual income from the properties at Rs 40,000, while the High Court had estimated it at about Rs 45,000. In addition, the High Court identified outstanding amounts, that is, sums due from debtors and other sources, to be in excess of Rs 5,00,000. The Court examined the evidence on record and found these figures to be substantially correct. One point that appeared to have influenced the High Court in increasing the amount of maintenance fixed by the trial Court was that, after the trial Court’s judgment was delivered, Ganga Raju had died, resulting in the entire income of the properties being enjoyed by the adopted son instead of being shared between Ganga Raju and the adopted son. The Court considered this reasoning to be of little relevance. It also noted that the High Court had overlooked two other matters: firstly, that Ganga Raju had suffered losses in his business transactions, and secondly, that the plaintiffs were able-bodied adults possessing their own earning capacity. After full consideration, the Court concluded that the proper amount of maintenance for each plaintiff should be fixed at Rs 125 per mensem and ordered accordingly. Accordingly, Appeal No 26 was partly allowed and the decree of the High Court was varied to the extent indicated, while Appeal No 27 was dismissed. In the circumstances, the Court made no order as to costs of the parties before it, but directed that the plaintiffs should receive costs in proportion to their success in the courts below.