MANICK CHUNDER DUTT Vs. BHUGGOBUTTY DOSSEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff, appellant, claims to have been adopted by the late Rajkrishna Dutt in his lifetime, and he brings this suit to have it declared that this adoption is valid, and that as such adopted son he is sole heir to his adoptive father. Mr. Justice Kennedy held upon the authority of the case of Upendra Lal Roy v. Rani Prasannamayi 1 B.L.R. A.C. 221 (i) that the adoption, if made, was invalid, because the plaintiff, at the date of the alleged adoption, was the only son of his father, and (ii) that no adoption had in fact taken place.

(2.) The case comes before us upon appeal from this decision, and the first question for consideration is, whether the adoption of an only son is invalid under the Hindu law. If this question is answered in the affirmative, there will be no necessity for deciding the second, which is one of fact.

(3.) I have gone carefully through all the authorities that we were referred to and that I have discovered, and 1 am surprised to find, how much less decisive authority there is upon the point than would appear from some of the modern text-writers. Many of the decisions commonly referred to have no bearing at all upon the question; in others the point is referred to, but it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether it was really considered.