GANPATRAO SHRIPATRAO KALMADI Vs. BALKRISHNA GURURAO KALMADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts are given in the judgment of the trial Court. THE only question argued in this appeal relates to the position in respect of inheritance of the sons of a man adopted in the dwyamushyayana form born after his adoption. A dwyamushyayana son means now a son adopted under an express agreement that he is to be the son of two fathers, i.e. he is to continue to be the son of his natural father while becoming also the son of his-adoptive father. THEre were formerly other ways in which a man might become the son of two fathers, but these are now obsolete : Basappa v. GUR-lingawa (1932) 35 Bom. L.R. 75. A man adopted in this form belongs to both families. He inherits in both families and both families inherit to him. This is not disputed.

(2.) ON general principles it might seem that the sons of such a man would also belong to both families, for it is in accordance with Hindu sentiment not by any means peculiar in this respectthat one of the advantages expected from having a son is that he in turn may have sons who will continue the family line. If the sons of a dwyamushyayana son do not belong to both families, it follows that he is not fully and completely the son of two fathers. He is either something less than an ordinary adopted son visa-vis his adoptive father, or something less than a natural son vis-a-vis his natural father as the case may be. However, it has not been argued before us that the sons of a dwyamushyayana belong, like their father, both to the adoptive family and to the natural family of the father. The argument for the appellant is that they revert to the natural family and inherit only in that. The argument for the respondents is that they belong to the adoptive family only, as would be the case with an ordinary adoption.

(3.) MR. Datar invited us to refer to the original passages in the Dattaka Mimansa and to hold that Sutherland and Macnaghten have misunderstood them. That in effect is what the argument comes to. The important passages are paras. 41 to 46 in Section VI, p. 85 in Sutherland's book, p. 610 in Stokes. We were also referred to para. 37 of Section II, of the Dattaka Chandrika, p. 646 in Stokes. But that corresponds to para, 42 in Section VI of the Dattaka Mimansa and does not, I think, carry the matter any further. There seem to be some differences in the citation of the original text, but where the works differ, it is settled that the Dattaka Mimansa is to be preferred.