History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1205

v4.c63.1205

¹¹³⁷ The decisions establish that *dāsi* is not to be taken in the strict literal sense (a female slave), but means a woman kept as a concubine, the connection being continuous, exclusive and lawful. In order that the illegitimate son of a śūdra may take a share or inherit, it must be shown that the connection between the śūdra man and the woman was not incestuous or adulterous or though adulterous at the beginning had ceased to be so when the illegitimate son was born. Vide *Rahi v. Govind* 1 Bom. 97 at p. 110, *Sadu v. Baiza* 4 Bom. 37 (F. B.) at p. 44, *Vithabai v. Pandu* 28 Bom. L. R. 595, *Soundararajan v. Arunachalam* 39 Mad. 136 (F. B.) pp. 152–159, *Tukaram v. Dinkar* 33 Bom. L. R. 289. But even the son of an adulterous intercourse has been held entitled to maintenance (1 Mad. 306, 34 Mad, 68, 47 Bom. L. ·R. 5 F. B.). The earlier cases in Calcutta (as in 1 Cal. 1, 19 Cal. 91, 28 Cal. 194), held that dāsi meant only a female slave and as slavery was abolished in India, there could be no dāsīputra strictly so called. But in *Rajaninath v. Nitai* 48 Cal. 643 (F. B.) the former Calcutta decisions were overruled and the Bombay High Court's interpretation of dāsīputra has been accepted. The passage of the Dāyabhāga (IX. 29 p. 143) which was to be correctly interpreted in the Calcutta cases runs "शूद्रस्य पुनरपरिणीतादास्यादिशूद्रापुत्रः पितुरनुमतया पुत्रान्तरतुल्यांशहरः । तदाह मनुः। दास्यां वा० (मनु IX. 179)। अनुमतिमन्तरेण त्वर्द्धांशहरः । तदाह याज्ञवल्क्यः। जातोपि० (या. II. 133–34). The Dāy. passage is quoted on pp. 680 and 723 of 48 Cal. 643 (F. B.).