VYASACHARYA NARAYANACHARYA Vs. VENKUBAI RANGACHARYA UPADYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the question referred is one not necessarily involved in the decision of the case, and one which should not now be considered. The alternative suggestion in the referring judgment is that the question for our decision should be limited with reference to the facts of the case. I agree that it should be so limited but I do not think that in that condition it is uncovered by sufficient authority.

(2.) The document which purports to transfer the absolute interest in certain immoveable property to the daughter of the adopting mother also reserves for the use of the latter all the rest of the property then in her possession for life subject to certain outstanding charges for maintenance of other widows. Notwithstanding this reservation, the adopted son sued for the Hrtroteof the property of his adoptive father in Suit No. 212 of 1895 immediately he attained majority and obtained possession of that property under a decree of the Court from his adopting mother. For this reason the facts of the case do not give rise to the general question stated in the referring judgment.

(3.) We must take the question for our decision to be, whether a settlement of immoveable property by an adopting widow in favour of her daughter to take effect upon the daughter attaining majority assented to by the natural father of the adopted boy at the time of the adoption can be enforced by the daughter against the adopted son who repudiates it on attaining majority ?