SANGANGAUDA FAKIRGAUDA Vs. HANMANTGAUDA SANGANGAUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Madgavkar in second appeal, and the case raises a short but interesting point of law. The plaintiff claims to succeed to certain watan property as the heir of his natural father Sangangauda. The answer of the defendants is that the plaintiff was adopted into the family of one Mudirangappa and that thereby he lost his right to succeed to his natural father. The reply of the plaintiff is that the alleged adoption was invalid.

(2.) The material facts are that the adoptive father Mudirangappa died in 1875 leaving a widow named Dandava, whom I will hereafter refer to as "the father's widow." He also left a son named Timappa who died in 1881. Timappa left a widow named Parvateva, whom I will refer to as " the son's widow." It is clear that on the death of the son the estate would vest in the son's widow, and that whether before or after the death of the son the father's widow could not herself exercise any power of adoption, because under the general rule of Hindu law the widow has no power to adopt if by so doing she will divest the estate of another. Therefore, the father's widow never actually had a power of adoption which she could have exercised at any given moment. On the other hand the son's widow could undoubtedly have adopted to her husband after his death. In 1902 the son's widow consented to the father's widow adopting the plaintiff, and it is not disputed that a form of adoption of that nature was gone through. The question is whether that adoption is valid.

(3.) Mr. Jayakar, to whom we are indebted for his very able argument, has referred us to a large number of cases commencing with the Privy Council case of Musswuat Bhoobun Moyee Debia V/s. Ram Kishore Acharj Chowdhry (1865) 10 M.I.A. 279, and including Pudma Coomari Debi V/s. Court of Wards (1881) L.R. 8 I.A. 229, Thayammal and Kuttisami Aiyan V/s. Venkatarama Aiyan (1887) L.R. 14 I.A. 67, Keshav Ramkrishna V/s. Govind Ganesh (1881) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 94, Krishnarav Trimbak Hasabnis V/s. Shankarrav Yinayak Hasabnis (1892) I.L.R. 17 Bom. 164, Ramkrishna V/s. Shamrao, s.c. 4 Bom. L.R. 315, F.B. Anandibai v. Kashibai, s.c. 6 Bom. L.R. 464, and Manikyamala Bose V/s. Nando, Kumar Bose (1906) I.L.R 33 Cal. 1306. Those cases establish a rule which, I think, is accurately stated in the judgment of the lull bench of this Court in Ramhriehna v. Shamrao, s.c. 4 Bom. L.R. 315, F.B., a judgment which was expressly approved by the Privy Council in Madana Mohana V/s. Purushothama, s.c. 20 Bom. L.R. 1041. The learned Judge Mr. Justice Chandavarksar delivering the judgment of the Court states the rule which he gathers from the Privy Council decisions at p. 532 in these terms: Where a Hindu dies leaving a widow and a son, and that son himself dies leaving a natural born or adopted eon or leaving no son but his own widow to continue the line by means of adoption, the power of the former widow is extinguished and can never afterwards be revived.