LAWS(PVC)-1924-11-50

GOVINDAPRASAD LALITAPRASAD MISHAR Vs. RINDABAI LALITAPRASAD

Decided On November 20, 1924
GOVINDAPRASAD LALITAPRASAD MISHAR Appellant
V/S
RINDABAI LALITAPRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the first defendant was not the legally adopted son of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff disputed the factum of the adoption. That issue was found in the affirmative, but on the issue whether the adoption was valid, the Court held that the adoption was not valid, though in fact it had been made, because the adoptive father and the adopted son were of different gotra. Consequently the datta homam was essential to validate the adoption, and in this case it is not disputed that the datta homam had not been performed. If we were of opinion that the adoption was valid, it would have been necessary to consider the authorities at some length. But we agree with the judgment in the Court below that in this particular case the datta homam was necessary.

(2.) The authorities are considered in the latest Edition of Mayne at pp. 205-208, and at the bottom of page 207 the conclusion is as follows : " So far as it is possible to reconcile these conflicting decisions, they seem to point to the conclusion that, among the twice-born classes, the datta homam is necessary, unless the adopted boy is of the same gotra as his adopter, or unless a usage to the contrary can be established." In Mahashoya Shoainath Ghose V/s. Srimati Krishna Soondari Dasi,(1880) L.R. 71 A. 250 heir lordships observed :- The mode of giving and taking a child in adoption continues to stand on Hindu law and Hindu usage, and it is perfectly clear that amongst the twice born classes here could be no such adoption by deed, because certain religious ceremonies, the datta homam in particular, are in their case requisite.

(3.) The question in issue in that appeal was whether there could be in the case of Sudras such a giving and taking as was necessary to satisfy the law, by mere deed, without an actual delivery of the child by the father. Still this dictum of their lordships may be taken as stating what their lordships considered at that time was necessary to validate an adoption amongst the twice-born classes.