9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the adoption of defendant 3. 2. Validity of the alienations made by Chanbasappa in favor of defendants 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 3. Share of an adopted son of a Sudra in competition with a natural born son. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Adoption of Defendant 3: The central question was whether the adoption of defendant 3 by the plaintiff was void because it was made when defendant 4 had already been conceived. The court examined Hindu law texts, including Dattaka Chandrika and Dattaka Mimamsa, which did not equate a son in existence with a son in the womb. The court emphasized that the main object of adoption is to secure spiritual benefit to the adopter, and its validity should not depend on contingencies that may or may not happen. It was held that the existence of a son in the womb does not invalidate an adoption. The court concluded that the adoption of defendant 3 was valid despite the conception of defendant 4. 2. Validity of the Alienations Made by Chanbasappa: The court addressed the validity of various alienations made by Chanbasappa: - Alienations in Favor of Defendants 1 and 2: The High Court set aside these alienations as they were executed after defendant 4 was conceived, at a time when Chanbasappa did not have absolute power of disposal over the family property. - Gift Deed Ex. 370: This deed was executed in favor of the 7th defendant, a relative, out of love and affection. The court held that a gift to a stranger of joint family property by the manager of the family is void, as it does not qualify as a gift for "pious purposes" under Hindu law. - Gift Deed Ex. 371: This deed created a life-interest in favor of Chanbasappa's widowed daughter, the 8th defendant, for her maintenance. The court upheld the validity of this gift, recognizing the father's moral obligation to provide for his daughter in indigent circumstances. The gift was deemed reasonable given the family's extensive properties. 3. Share of an Adopted Son of a Sudra in Competition with a Natural Born Son: The court considered whether the Lingayats, to which the parties belong, are Sudras or dwijas, and proceeded on the assumption that they are Sudras. It was noted that in the Madras Presidency, an adopted son among Sudras shares equally with a natural born son. However, in the Bombay Presidency, the rule from Dattaka Chandrika was not followed, and the share of an adopted son in competition with a natural born son has always been 1/5th of the family property. The court upheld this long-established rule in the Bombay State. Conclusion: Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff and defendant 3 was dismissed with costs. Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1960 filed by defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, the legal representatives of defendant 7, and defendant 8, except to the extent of the 8th defendant's right to maintenance under Ex. 371, was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by the 8th defendant was allowed with costs proportionate to her interest in the property throughout.
|
