In Re: P. Kousalya Ammal

Ramaswami, J.—This is an application for impleading P. Kausalya Ammal as heir of the deceased P. B, Kalahasthi Chetti, the second

defendant in O. S. No. 884 of 1955, who died on 18th June 1957, pending disposal of the suit.

The contest to be brought on record as the heir of deceased Kalahasthi Chetti is between the father''s brother''s daughter''s adopted son of the

deceased by name Guruwayya Chetti and the father''s brother''s son''s widow of the deceased Kalahasthi Chetti.

Looked at from any point of view the petitioner cannot be impleaded. Here are my reasons.

Taking the Hindu Mitakshara system as administered in Madras the father''s brother''s daughter''s adopted son of the deceased will be a Athma

Bandhu. This petitioner will not be a heir because the heirship can be claimed only by birth and not by matrimony. In the Mitakshara system as

administered in Bombay undoubtedly this Kausalya Ammal will be heir No. 45 and will exclude this Guruvayya Chetti. Under the Dayabagha

system this Kausalya will not be heir and Guruvayya will be heir standing in the order of No. 30. This is so far as the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga

systems go.

Turning to the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, the word agnate has been defined as follows:

One person is said to be agnate to another, if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through males."" The term cognate is defined as

follows: ""One person is said to be cognate to another if the two are related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males.

Applying this definition Guruvayya will be cognate, and Kausalya will neither be an agnate nor a cognate. This has been specifically referred to by

the learned Assistant City Civil Judge,

The petitioner in I. A. No. 534 of 1957 (Kausalya) is related to the deceased not by blood or adoption but only by marriage which is not at all

contemplated under Act XXX of 1956 except in case of certain specific relations like widow, son''s widow, brother''s widow, father''s widow

etc.

In the result looked at either from the point of view of Mitakshara system as administered in this State or under the provisions of the Hindu

Succession Act this Kausalya cannot be brought on record as heir of the deceased Kalahasthi Chetti in preference to Guravayya. This petition is

dismissed.

I must thank the learned Advocate Mr. N. R. Raghavachari, well known for his writings on Hindu Law, Hindu Succession Act etc. for the help

rendered in disposing of this application as friend of the court and at my instance.