Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1959 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
S. Pathak, B. Dutta, T.R. Ramchandra, J.B. Dadachanji, C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India, K. Jayaram and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for respondent number 1 Panchapagesa Iyer, M.P. Swami and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent number 2.
At the trial a further point was raised that even if any marriage between Padmavathi and Sadagopa did take place that was number a valid marriage as Padmavathi was a Brahmin girl and Sadagopa a Shudra.
On both these points the Trial Court found the plaintiffs case proved and rejected the defence pleas.
The validity of the Act was unsuccessfully challenged.
December 11, 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J. Thirteen month old Bhakthavathsalam brought this suit for partition on a claim that on his birth he became a member of the joint Hindu family which his father R. Sadagopa Naidu, the first defendant, in the suit, formed with the other nine persons impleaded as defendents 2 to 10.
The validity of the Act itself appears to have been challenged before the Trial Court, but, this was rejected.
316 of 1959.
The main companytention of the companytesting defendants is that there was never any marriage of Padmavathi and Sadagopa and that Bhakthavathsalam is number Sadagopas son.
His case is that Padmavathi and Sadagopa were validly married on June 24, 1948 and of that marriage he was born.
282 of 1952.
Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
Against this decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed by the defendants with special leave.
