Subbaraya vs Kylasa and Others

The question is whether the plaintiff, whose mother is found to have been the step-sister of Ramasami Mudaliar, now deceased, stands in the

line of inheritance to him?

If he were the son of Ramasami''s sister of the full blood, there can be no doubt that he would be so entitled, being a bandhu of the deceased;

but it has been argued that a step-sister''s son does not stand on the same footing as a sister''s son, and, with regard to the oases cited, it is said

that they are of no authority in this presidency.

Apart from those cases we are of opinion that the position of the stepsister''s son cannot be distinguished from that of the sister''s son. The

relationship between the maternal uncle and his sister''s son or step-sister''s son is alike that of sapindas, for, in both cases, there is a common

grandfather and ""the relation of sapindas arises from connection as parts of one body."" See Mitak-shara cited in Amrita Kumari Debi v.

Lakhinarayan Chuckerbutty 2 B.L.R., 33 and Mart v. Chinnammal ILR 8 Mad. 126 As to the other condition requisite to make the plaintiff a

bandhu there is no doubt, for clearly he is sprung from a different family. It was contended that the decision in Mori v. Chinnammal ILR 8 Mad.

126 with reference to the position of the stepmother was adverse to the present claim; but thai contention is answered by the observation that the

exclusion of a woman in no way involves the exclusion of her offspring. There are several cases in which the children have rights which their mother

would not have (Mayne''s Hindu Law, �� 492, Bayantngaru v. Vencata Gopala Narasimha Rau, 6 M.H. C.R. 278 The observation of

Muttusami Ayyar, J., in Mari v. Chinnammal ILR 8 Mad. 126 seems to show that, in his opinion, the right of the step-sister''s son must be

recognized. For these reasons we are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge must be reversed, and the suit remanded for trial. Costs to

abide event.