9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of adoption in 'Dwyamushyayana' form. 2. Legitimacy of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Bar of limitation on the suit. 4. Jurisdiction of the first appellate court to reconsider the question of adoption after remand. Detailed Analysis Validity of Adoption in 'Dwyamushyayana' Form The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that Goverdhan Das was adopted in 'Dwyamushyayana' form, which would allow him to retain rights in both his natural and adoptive families. The defendants contested this, asserting the adoption was in ordinary form, severing his ties with the natural family. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding the adoption was not in 'Dwyamushyayana' form. The first appellate court upheld this, stating the adoption was invalid as it was performed by Kishan Lal, not Moti Lal, the natural father. The High Court remanded the case, but the first appellate court again found the adoption was not in 'Dwyamushyayana' form. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting the lack of an agreement between the natural and adoptive fathers, essential for 'Dwyamushyayana' adoption. Legitimacy of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 The plaintiffs argued that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were illegitimate as their mother, Sundra Bai, was not legally married to Kishan Lal. The trial court found Sundra Bai was legally married to Kishan Lal, making defendant Nos. 1 and 2 legitimate. The first appellate court confirmed this finding, which was not contested further in the Supreme Court. Bar of Limitation on the Suit The trial court initially dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The first appellate court upheld this dismissal. The High Court, however, found that the question of limitation was not correctly decided and remanded the case for reconsideration. Upon remand, the trial court found the suit was filed within the limitation period. The first appellate court later reversed this, again finding the suit barred by limitation. The Supreme Court did not address this issue directly, focusing instead on the adoption and legitimacy issues. Jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court to Reconsider the Question of Adoption After Remand The High Court initially remanded the case to the first appellate court without addressing the merits of the adoption issue, dismissing the defendants' cross-objection as infructuous. Upon remand, the first appellate court reconsidered and found the adoption invalid. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in stating the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to reconsider the adoption issue after remand. The Supreme Court clarified that the remand was open, allowing the first appellate court to decide all issues afresh. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the first appellate court's decision. The findings were that the adoption was not in 'Dwyamushyayana' form, the defendants were legitimate, and the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court's jurisdictional error in limiting the scope of remand was corrected, affirming the first appellate court's comprehensive reconsideration of all issues.
|
