LAWS(PVC)-1922-3-81

GHANSHYAMDAS VISHNUDAS GANDHI Vs. LAXMIBAI VISHNUDAS GANDHI

Decided On March 01, 1922
GHANSHYAMDAS VISHNUDAS GANDHI Appellant
V/S
LAXMIBAI VISHNUDAS GANDHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the lawfully adopted son of the deceased Vishnudas, who died in 1911, leaving the 1 defendant, the widow, him surviving. On an application to the District Court under Act VIII of 1890, defendants 2 to 5 were appointed guardians of the person and property of defendant 1, and in that capacity defendants 2 to 5 took the property in their possession and began to manage it. The plaintiff claimed that he was adopted on the 2 May, 1914 when the 1 defendant, the widow, was sixteen years and eight months old. There is no doubt that the adoption ceremony took place. But we should have thought that the very fact that the adopted son was the son of a certificated guardian would be quite sufficient to throw suspicion on the whole transaction, and would throw the onus on the plaintiff to show that it was a valid adoption brought about with the free consent of the first defendant.

(2.) In the trial Court various issues were raised. The principal issue was:- Is it proved that the alleged adoption was brought about by fraud, coercion and undue influence exercised on defendant 1. After a very careful and lengthy consideration of the evidence on that point, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the proper finding on that issue was in the affirmative. Consequently the plaintiff's claim was rejected.

(3.) Then in appeal the question arose whether the suit as framed was tenable. Eventually the Assistant Judge directed a remand of the suit to the lower Court for taking necessary action in the light of his judgment and returning the record and proceedings together with its fresh findings on issues Nos. 12 and 15, if necessary, within two months. Now issues 12 and 15 were as follows:-(12) Is the plaint properly stamped ? and (15) Is the claim properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction ? The remand was made to enable the plaintiff to elect whether he should amend the plaint and pay the additional Court fees.