BHAU ABAJI DESHPANDE Vs. HARI RAMCHANDRA PATKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff sued for possession of certain property on the basis of a sale- deed from the daughters of one Krishnaji, dated March 14, 1919. THEre was an agreement that Rs. 2,000 should be paid after the vendee had recovered possession, and that fact alone leads one to think that the parties to the sale-deed were aware that there was soma defect in the title. Krishnaji was the last male holder of the property. He died leaving a widow Radhabai who adopted the first defend, ant on May 20, 1913. THE second defendant was a vendee from the first defendant. Obviously, if the adoption was good, the plaintiff would have no rights against the first defendant. But the plaintiff contended that the first detent ant had no title as the adopted son of Krishnaji, because he had been previously adopted by one Ramchandra Waman Patki. THE factum of that adoption was proved. It was also proved, however, that the first defendant was the sister's son of Ramchandra. THE parties being Deshastha Brahmins, prima facie the adoption of a sister's son would be invalid. No attempt was made to show that in the community to which the parties belonged, a custom had been established to permit the adoption of a sister's son. That being the case the fact that the first defendant had gone through the ceremony of adoption purporting to result in his passing into the family of Ramchandra, must be considered as a nullity, and would not operate as a defect against his being validly adopted by Radhabai into the family of Krishnaji.

(2.) THE question whether an invalid adoption confers any rights in the adoptive family is considered by Mr. Mayne in his 9 Edition of Hindu Law, paragraph 176, and the following paragraphs, and after discussing the cases the conclusion arrived at in paragraph 179 is that the view taken by the Madras High Court, that an adoption must either be effectual for all purposes, or a nullity, has the merit of being practical and intelligible while doing substantial justice to all parties. We think, therefore, that there was no obstacle in the way of the first defendant being adopted by Radhabai, and it follows that Krishnaji's daughters then had no title to sell the property to the plaintiff. THE appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.