civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 462 of 1957.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
april 181952 of the former nagpur high companyrt in first
appeal number 88 of 1942.

b. agarwala and k. p. gupta for the appellant number 1.
har dayal hardy and n. n. keswani for respondent number 1. 1961. march 16. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
subba rao j.-this appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment and decree of the high of judicature at
nagpur companyfirming the judgment of the 2nd additional
district judge jabalpur in civil suit number 9-a of 1942
filed by respondents 2 to 7 herein claiming to be the
reversioners of the estate of one raja ajitsingh. ajit
singh was the raja of saliya estate companysisting of 73
villages and other property situate in jabalpur and saugor
districts. ajit singh died on january 2 1910 leaving
behind him two widows named rani khuman kuar and rani anant
kuar and an illegitimate son named ramraghuraj singh. rani
anant kuar died in or about 1914 and rani khuman kuar passed
away on february 1 1922. after the death of raja ajit
singh the estate was taken over by the companyrt of wards on
behalf of the widows in the year 1913 and remained in its
possession till march 27 1923. after the death of rani
khuman kuar the local government issued a numberification
recognizing ramraghuraj singh as the successor to the
estate but for one reason or other the
court of wards companytinued to manage the estate on his behalf
from september 23 1923. ramraghuraj singh died on april
23 1932 and on his death the first respondent the son of
ramraghuraj singh was declared as the ward of the companyrt of
wards which companytinued to manage the estate on his behalf
respondents 2 to 6 claiming to be the reversioners to the
estate of raja ajit singh filed a suit on june 15 1935
for recovery of possession of the estate. appellants 1 and
2 are alleged to be the assignees pendente lite of the
interest of the alleged reversioners. the plaintiffs averred that ramralhurai singh was the son of
one jhutti by her husband one sukhai and that as raja ajit
singh had numberissue he and the ranies treated the boy as
their son that the lodhi companymunity to which raja ajit singh
belonged was number a sudra caste and that therefore even if
ramraghuraj singh was the illegitimate son of raja ajit
singh he was number entitled to a share and that in any view
half of the share of the widows in the estate would devolve
on their death on the reversioners to the exclusion of the
illegitimate son. they further pleaded that the possession
of the companyrt of wards of the entire estate from january 2
1910 to february 1 1922 was adverse to the illegitimate
son and therefore he lost his title if any to the said
estate. the case of the first respondent was that raja ajit
singh belonged to the sudra caste that ramraghuraj singh
was the son of the said raja by a companytinuously and
exclusively kept companycubine named raj dulari that the widows
never questioned the right of ramraghuraj singh to a share
in the property of raja ajit singh that therefore there was
numberscope for the plea of adverse possession and that after
the death of the widows the succession to the estate of
raja ajit singh in respect of one half share opened out and
the illegitimate son he being the nearest heir succeeded
to that share also. the trial companyrt as well as the high companyrt companycurrently gave
the following findings  1  raja ajit singh belonged to the
sudra caste  2  raja raghuraj singh was the son of raja
ajit singh by a companytinuously and
exclusively kept companycubine by name raj dulari who had
passed into the companyeubinage of raja ajit singh after the
death of her husband  3  as the illegitimate son of raja
ajit singh ramraghuraj singh succeeded to a moiety of the
estate of his putative father and the two widows of raja
ajit singh succeeded to the other moiety of his estate  4
as there was numberdaughter or daughters son after the death
of the widows ramraghuraj singh being the sole surviving
heir of his putative father inherited a moiety of the
estate which was held by the widows during their lifetime

ramraghuraj singh was all along in joint possession of
the estate with the widows and although the companyrt of wards
had assumed superintendence on behalf of the ranies he was
number out of possession during their lifetime and as such his
title companyld number be extinguished by adverse possession  6
the plaintiffs suit was barred under s. 26 of the central
provinces companyrt of wards act and  7  the plaintiffs claim
was barred by limitation. while the trial companyrt held that it had number been established
that the plaintiffs were the reversioners of raja ajit
singh the high companyrt held that it had been proved. in the
result the trial companyrt dismissed the suit and on appeal
the high companyrt companyfirmed it. the 2nd appellant died and his legal representatives were
number brought on record and the appeal so far as the 2nd
appellant is companycerned has abated. the 1st appellant alone
proceeded with the appeal. it is the usual practice of this companyrt to accept the
concurrent findings of the companyrts below. there are no
exceptional circumstances in this case at any rate numbere was
brought to our numberice to companypel us to depart from the usual
practice. we therefore accept the companycurrent findings
namely that raja ajit singh was a member of the sudra caste
and that ramraghuraj singh was the son of raja ajit singh by
a companytinuously and exclusively kept companycubine named raj
dulari who passed into his companycubinage after the death of
her husband. the main question that arises in this appeal is whether an
illegitimate son of a sudra vis-a-vis his-selfacquired
property after having succeeded to a half
share of his putative fathers estate will be entitled to
succeed to the other half share got by the widow after the
succession opened out to his putative father on the death
of the said widow. the answer to the question depends upon
the companytent of the right of an illegitimate son to succeed
to the self-acquired property of his putative father. the
source of his right is found in the relevant hindu law
texts. mitakshara in explanation of the texts of manu and
yajnavalkya says in chapter 1 s. 12 in the following three
verses thus

the author next delivers a special rule
concerning the partition of a sudras goods. even a son begotten by a sudra on a female
slave may take a share by the fathers choice. but if the father be dead the brethren
should make him partaker of the moiety of a
share and one who has numberbrothers may
inherit the whole property in default of
daughters sons. the son begotten by a sudra on a female
slave obtains a share by the fathers choice
or at his pleasure. but after the demise of
the father if there be sons of a wedded wife
let these brothers allow the son of the female
slave to participate for half a share that
is let them give him half as much as is the
amount of one brothers allotment. however
should there be numbersons of a wedded wife the
son of the female slave takes the whole
estate provided there be numberdaughters of a
wife number sons of daughters. but if there be
such the son of the female slave participates
for half a share only. from the mention of a sudra in this
place it follows that the son begotten by a
man of a regenerate tribe on a female slave
does number obtain a share even by the fathers
choice number the whole estate after his demise. but if he be docile he receives a simple
maintenance. numbermention of a widow is found in the above
verses but in dattaka chandrika the author
says in v. 3031 thus
if any even in the series of heirs down to
the
daughters son exist the son by a female
slave does number take the whole estate but on
the companytrary shares equally with such heir. the leading decision on the rights of an illegitimate son is
that of the judicial companymittee in raja jogendra bhupati
hurri chundun mahapatra v. nityanund mansingh  1 . there
one raja died leaving behind him a legitimate son and an
illegitimate son. on the death of the legitimate son who
had succeeded to the raja it was held that the illegitimate
son succeeded to him by survivorship. sir richard companych
cited two verses from mitakshara chapter 1 section 12. we
have already extracted the said verses. companymenting upon
these verses the learned judge observed at p. 132 thus
number it is observable that the first verse
shews that during the lifetime of the father
the law leaves the son to take a share by his
fathers choice and it cannumber be said that at
his birth he acquires any right to share in
the estate in the same way as a legitimate son
would do. but the language there is very
distinct that if the father be dead the bre-
thren should make him partaker of the moiety
of a share. so in the second verse the words
are that the brothers are to allow him to
participate for half a share and later on
there is the same expression the son of the
female slave participates for half a share
only. on that interpretation he accepted the view of the bombay
high companyrt and held that an illegitimate son and a
legitimate son being members of an undivided hindu family
governed by mitakshara the illegitimate son becomes
entitled to the whole of the immoveable property of the
family if the legitimate son dies without any male issue. the judicial companymittee again companysidered the right of an
illegitimate son in kamulammal v. visvanathaswami naicker
 2 . there it was held that in a companypetition between a
widow and an illegitimate son to the property of his
putative father the illegitimate son takes half of the
 1   1890  l.r. 17 i.a. 128.  2   1922  l.r. 50 i.a. 32.
property and the widow the other half. sir lawrence jenkins
observed at p. 37 thus
here the companytest is between the illegitimate
son and the widow and though the widow is number
named in the text it is well settled that as a
preferential heir to the daughters son she is
included among those who share with the
illegitimate son and it would serve numberuseful
purpose to speculate why she was number mentioned
in the text. the status of the illegitimate son was subject of further
scrutiny by the privy companyncil in vellaiyappa chetty v.
natarajan  1 . there the question arose in the companytext of
an illegitimate sons right to maintenance from a joint
family property after the death of his father who left no
separate property. the judicial companymittee held that he was
entitled as a member of the family to maintenance out of the
joint family property in the hands of the companylaterals with
whom the father was joint. in dealing with the question of
status of an illegitimate son sir dinshah mulla speaking
for the companyrt after companysidering the relevant hindu law
texts and decisions arrived at the following companyclusion at
p. 15
on a companysideration of the texts and the cases
on the subject their lordships are of opinion
that the illegitimate son of a sudra by a
continuous companycubine has the status of a son
and that he is a member of the family that
the share of inheritance given to him is number
merely in lieu of maintenance but in
recognition of his status as a
son
it is number necessary to multiply decisions. the law
pertaining to the right of inheritance of an illegitimate
son to his putative fathers self-acquired property may be
stated thus an illegitimate son has the status of a son
under the hindu law and he is a member of the family. but
his rights are limited companypared to those of a son born in
wedlock. he has numberright by birth and therefore he cannumber
demand partition during his fathers lifetime. during the
lifetime of his father the law allows the illegitimate son
to take
 1   1931  i.l. r. 55 mad. 1.
only such share as his father may give him. but on his
fathers death he takes his fathers self-acquired property
along with the legitimate son and in case the legitimate son
dies he takes the entire property by survivorship. even if
there is numberlegitimate son the illegitimate son would be
entitled to a moiety only of his fathers estate when there
is a widow daughter or daughters son of the last male
holder. in the absence of any one of the three heirs he
succeeds to the entire estate of his father. from the
premises it follows that an illegitimate son except to the
extent circumscribed by the. hindu law texts has the
status of a son and is heir to the self-acquired property of
his putative father. if that be his undoubted right under
the hindu law on what principle can he be deprived of his
right of succession to the other moiety of his fathers
property after the death of the widow? under the hindu law
the death of the widow opens inheritance to the reversioners
and the nearest heir at the time to the last full owner
becomes entitled to possession. when the succession opens
in a companypetition between an illegitimate son and other
reversioners the illegitimate son is certainly a nearer
heir to the last male holder than the other reversioners. if he was the nearest heir only yielding half a share to the
widow at the time of the death of his putative father how
does he cease to be one by the intervention of the widows
estate? as on the death of the widow the estate reverts
back to the last male holder the succession shall be traced
to him and if so traced the illegitimate son has a
preferential claim over all other reversioners. in maynes
hindu law 11th edn. this position has been companytroverted in
the following manner at p. 637
the illegitimate bon though he inherits on
the death of his putative father along with
or in default of male issue widow or
daughter cannumber companye in as a reversionary
heir on the death of the widow or daughter as
he is undoubtedly neither a sagotra number a
bhinnagotra sapinda of the last male-holder
within the text of manu. we regret our inability to accept this proposition. for if accepted we would be speaking in two voices. once
it is established that for the purpose of succession an
illegitimate son of a sudra has the status of a son and that
he is entitled to succeed to his putative fathers entire
self-acquired property in the absence of a son widow
daughter or daughters son and to a share along with them
we cannumber see any escape from the companysequential and logical
position that he shall be entitled to succeed to the other
half share when succession opens after the widows death. the intervention of the widow only postpones the opening of
succession to the extent of half share but it cannumber divert
the succession through a different channel for she cannumber
constitute herself a new stock of descent. the opinion
expressed in maynes hindu law is sought to be supported by
the author by reference to a decision of the madras high
court in karuppayee ammal v. ramaswami  1 . but a reference
to that judgment shows that numbersuch proposition has been
laid down therein. there the facts were that on the death
of a sudra the last male owner of an estate his widow
succeeded to a moiety thereof and his illegitimate son to
the other moiety the widow then died leaving behind her a
son of the daughter of the last male owner and the illegi-
timate son above mentioned. the madras high companyrt held that
the daughters son was entitled to the moiety that had
vested in the widow and the illegitimate son was number
entitled to any portion thereof. the reason for that
conclusion is found at p. 868 and it is
the principle underlying the doctrine of
reverter referred to is that the last male-
holders estate is inherited by females who
have numberfree right of alienation and who hold
a peculiar kind of estate called womans
estate and on whose death the then heir of
the last male-holder succeeds to the last
male-holders estate. from its very nature
the doctrine companyld number apply legitimately to a
case where the last male-holders estate
vested on his death number in a female heir but
in a male heir also. in such a case the
doctrine as such would number strictly apply number
has it been so far as we are aware applied
to such a case.  1   1932  i.l.r. 55 mad. 856.
the reason of the decision is therefore clear and that is
when a daughters son succeeds to an estate there is no
further scope for the application of the doctrine of
reverter. the learned judges expressly left open the
present question when they said we are number number companycerned
with the question as to what would become of the property if
the last of the daughters died without leaving a daughter
son in such circumstances. this decision cannumber
therefore be invoked in support of the companytention that in a
case where the doctrine of reverter applies the illegitimate
son is excluded from succession. on the other hand the
nagpur high companyrt in bhagwantrao v. punjaram  1  rightly
came to the companyclusion that where on a partition between a
legitimate and an illegitimate son the widow was allotted a
share on her death the illegitimate son was entitled to a
share in the property. we therefore hold that on the
death of the widow the illegitimate son the father of the
first respondent herein succeeded to the other half share
of the estate of his putative father raja ajit singh. it is. next companytended that the widows acquired an absolute
interest in the estate of raja. ajit singh by adverse
possession and therefore the property would devolve number
on raja ajit singhs heirs but on the heirs of the widows. on the question of adverse possession also both the companyrts
below have held against the appellant. but learned companynsel
argued that in the circumstances of this case the said find-
ing was a mixed question of fact and law. it was said that
the companyrts below missed the point that the companyrt of wards
representing the widows held the estate adversely to
ramraghuraj singh in respect of his half share and
therefore the fact that during its management the widows
did number deny the title of ramraghuraj singh or the fact that
they admitted his title companyld number affect the question of
adverse possession. assuming that learned companynsel for the
appellant was companyrect in his companytention we fail to see how
the said legal position would advance the appellants case
for the companyrt of wards admittedly managed only the

i.l.r. 1938 nag. 255.
widows limited estate and it is number the case of the
appellant that the companyrt of wards acquired on behalf of the
widows an absolute interest in respect of the half share of
ramraghuraj singh in the suit properties. the plaintiffs
themselves claimed to hereversioners of raja ajit singh on
the ground that the succession to him opened out when the
widows died and if their companytention be accepted namely
that the widows acquired an absolute interest in half of the
property they would be number-suited in respect thereof on the
simple ground that their suit was number to recover the
property as the heirs of the widows. but as we have
pointed out the widows would have acquired a title by
adverse possession in respect of the share of ramraghuraj
singh only in their capacity as owners of a limited estate
i.e. in regard to their half share they held it as widows
estate and in respect of the other half-share of ramraghuraj
singh they acquired a right by adverse possession only a
limited estate therein.