JUPUDI VENKATA VIJAYA BHASKAR Vs. JUPUDI KESAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in these appeals is about the validity of an ante-adoption agreement entered into prior to adoption between to-be adopted son and the would-be adoptive father after coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the Act).

(2.) The question has arisen in a suit instituted by the appellant for partition in respect of properties mentioned in the Schedule to the ante-adoption agreement. Defendant No. 1 is the adoptive father of the appellant and defendant No. 2 is a formal party being son of the appellant supporting his father. The appellant, in May, 1957, was brought by defendant No. 1 and his wife to their house from the house of his natural parents. Since then, he was brought up by defendant No. 1 and his wife. The wife of defendant No. 1 also brought up her niece. Undisputedly, the ante-adoption agreement (Exhibit B-16) dated 14th March, 1962 entered into between the appellant (plaintiff) and defendant No. 1 was executed when the appellant was a major. The execution and genuineness of Exhibit B-16 is not under challenge. The challenge is about the validity of Exhibit B-16 on the ground that it is hit by S.17(1) of the Act. The concurrent findings of fact that have not been challenged are that the appellant was adopted by defendant No. 1 and his wife in the morning hours on 24th March, 1962. On the same date, in the evening marriage between the appellant and niece of wife of defendant No. 1 took place.

(3.) The suit instituted by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court has been upheld by the High Court in the first appeal. Exhibit B-16 has been held to be valid and not hit by S. 17 of the Act. In these appeals, challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court, the only point canvassed by Mr. Sunil Gupta, Senior Advocate for the appellant, is about Exhibit B-16, being invalid in view of prohibition contained in S. 17 of the Act. To consider this question, we would assume as correct the conclusion of the High Court that the appellant on adoption on 24th March, 1962 became a coparcener and the first defendant ceased to be a sole surviving coparcener. Learned counsel for the respondents has not raised the invalidity of adoption under Cl. (iv) of S. 10 of the Act on the ground that the appellant was more than 15 years of age. Finding of the High Court on the said aspect is that in view of the custom in the Vaish community to which the parties belong adoption after the age of 15 years is permissible. This finding is also not under challenge.