9911796707
TMI Blog1950 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the plaint. It is common ground that Rami Reddi left a will, Ex. P-1, dated 19-7-1921 disposing of his properties in the manner therein set out. Rami Reddi was the owner of landed properties situated in the village of Mahimalur of which he was also the hereditary village headman. He had lauded properties in other villages as well. He died on 26-7-1921 leaving behind him his two widows, Venkamma and Kamalamma. The first wife, Venkamma had been living apart from Rami Reddi for some years before his death and a separate pro-vision for her maintenance had also been made by Rami Reddi during his lifetime. The will Ex. P-1, makes a provision for Kamalamma, the second wife of Rami Reddi and in favour of the child to be born to her who was ence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case and the serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the adoption set up by him and came to the emphatic conclusion that the adoption was not established. Mr. Veera-raghavan for the appellant tried to challenge this finding of fact of the learned District Judge but having considered the whole of the evidence we find it impossible to say that the finding is either erroneous in law or perverse. The case must therefore proceed on the footing that there was no adoption in fact. 3. The learned Advocate-General who appeared at an earlier stage of the case argued that whatever may be the ultimate decision of the Court as regards the truth or validity of the adoption in a suit between the adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... object of securing the office of village headman to the plaintiff, then a minor, and enabling defendant 2 to act as a proxy for the minor, certain representations were made by the widow to the revenue authorities in connection with the office of village headman. Exhibit P. 2 is a petition and Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 22 are the statements of the widow, defendant 1, in connection with the appointment of a successor to her husband to the office of village headman of Mahimalur. In all these three documents, there is an admission by defendant 1 that she had adopted the plaintiff pursuant to her husband's authority given to her under Ex. P. 1 and this admission is coupled with a request that the plaintiff, then a minor, might be appointed to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption arising from such a statement. If that is not satisfactorily done, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. (Chandrakunwar v. Narpat Singh, 29 ALL. 184 : 34 I. A. 27 P. C. With reference to admissions made by one of the parties to a suit, as in this case, the party making the admission is at liberty to prove that such admissions were mistaken or were untrue and is not estopped or concluded by them unless another person has been induced by them to alter his condition. This principle has been laid down by the Judicial Committee in clear terms in the case above cited. The explanation which has been given and which has been accepted by the learned District Judge for the statements contained in Exs. P. 2, P . 4 and P. 22 is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But she has given a reasonably acceptable explanation of these statements which has been accepted as satisfactory by the District Judge and, in these circumstances, we cannot hold that she is estoppel or concluded by them unless the plaintiff has been induced by those statements to alter his condition to his prejudice or detriment. Estoppel though a branch of the law of evidence is also capable of being viewed as a substantive rule of law in so far as it helps to create or defeat rights which would not exist or be taken away but for that doctrine it involves a combination of several essential elements ;the representation or statement to be acted upon, action on the faith of such statement and in the manner intended and resultant prejudice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct on the part of the widow might not clothe the adoptee with the status of an adopted son under the Hindu law, still the widow herself was personally estopped from disputing the truth and validity of the adoption. In that case, the widow had asserted her authority to adopt in the most solemn manner in a deed of adoption executed by her and her conduct both before and after that assertion had been of an unequivocal character. It was held that she could not be allowed to change her story without grave injustice to the respondent who had acted in reliance upon her deliberate and repeated representations. In the present case, the factum of adoption itself has not been proved by anything like reliable evidence. There is no evidence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
