SAMBASIVA PILLAI Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SOUTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by Government to obtain possession as an escheat of the property of one Shanmuga Yogeswaraswami. The facts found are that the latter was a Sudra ascetic, not entitled to enter the order of Yati or Sanyasi: that the suit property was his secular property, not endowed in favour of any institution: that he died leaving no relations: and that 4 defendant was his chief " Sishya " or disciple. The sole question for our decision is whether the claims of the 4 defendant to inherit as "Sishya" are sufficient to stop the escheat to Government. Both the lower courts decided in favour of Government. Defendants 1 and 3 who have acquired the rights of 4 defendant by purchase, appeal.

(2.) Both the lower court's have decided the question as if it were concluded by the ruling in Dharmapuram Pandara Sannadhi V/s. Virapandyam Pillai but as a matter of fact that has no application to the present case. Appellants here reply on the passage in Yajnavalkya ch. 2, 137 and Mitakshara, Section 7 which recognise in ordinary cases of succession the claims of a pupil or fellow student to succeed in default of kindred. The text in Yajnavalkya runs thus: - "The lawfully wedded wife and the daughters also, both parents, brothers likewise, and their sons, gentiles, cognates, a pupil, and a fellow student, on failure of the first among them, the next in order is the heir to the estate of one who departed for heaven, leaving no male issue. This rule extends to all classes." The learned Judges in Dharmapuram Pandara Sannadhi V/s. Virapandyam Pillai (1898) I.L.R. 22 Mad. 302 on the other hand were considering the applicability of a totally different section of the Mitakshara, Section 8 which is based on Yajnavalkya II, 138, and lays down a special rule of succession to a hermit or ascetic whereby the claims of kindred are dismissed in favour of those of " a preceptor, virtuous pupil and spiritual brother or associate in holiness." This is an exception to the ordinary rule: and it was held in the above quoted judgment that it did not govern the case of a Sudra ascetic. The dispute there was between the spritual and natural heirs.

(3.) What has to be determined here is whether the rule in Yajnavalkya II, 137 which is stated to apply to all classes should be given effect to as against the escheat claim of Government: or whether, as urged by the learned Government Pleader, the rule is obsolete and should be disregarded. I need hardly say that where the meaning and applicability of ancient texts is concerned, I come to a conclusion with great diffidence: but in the present instance there seems to be no doubt as to the meaning of the texts themselves while as to their applicability I am not unfortified by authority and the conclusion to which I feel forced is not so unreasonable, even to western ideas, as it might seem at first sight.