RAMA NANA BABAR Vs. DHONDI MURARI TARADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit as the adopted son of one Murari Tarade to recover possession of the suit properties, which had been gifted by his adoptive mother to her daughter Rakhma who died prior to the suit. Murari died leaving a widow Dhondai and three daughters. The date of his death does not appear on the record but it was prior to November 23, 1910, when Dhondai executed a gift deed (Exhibit 52) in favour of Rakhma, her youngest daughter. The document recites that the ether two daughters were married and had ample means, while Rakhma and her husband had been residing with Dhondai, serving her and looking after her comforts and the arrangement of her maintenance, and as she hoped that both of them would continue to do the same to the last she gave to Rakhma in gift the property described below. Then in the operative part it was stated that the donee should go on looking after the arrangements of the donor-s feeding, etc., and should render service to her by way of looking after her comforts as she had been doing all along to the end of the donor's life and should perform the last religious rites in accordance with their religion. Rakhma died first and thereafter Dhondai, having fallen out with Rakhma's husband, defendant No. 1, adopted the plaintiff, nearly twelve years after her husband's death.

(2.) It has been found as a fact that plaintiff was adopted by Dhondai and that Rakhma's sisters consented to the alienation by Dhondai to Rakhma who was the sole next reversioner as being the poorest of the three married daughters.

(3.) The trial Judge said : "A son by adoption stands in very much the same position as a natural born son and traces his rights to the property of his adoptive father as they existed at the time of his death though he might be adopted by the widow long after and would divest all estates created by the widow during the interval between the time of the death of the last male owner and of his adoption by the widow of such owner". He then dealt with the argument that the consent of the next reversioners was presumptive proof of necessity and therefore made the alienation good against the plaintiff, coming to the conclusion that in the case of a gift without consideration no question of necessity could arise.