KARUTURI GOPALAM Vs. KARUTURI VENKATARAGHAVULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Venkanna adopted the plaintiff in 1898, The first defendant was subsequently born. Venkanna died in 1902. The second defendant, the natural mother of the first defendant and the adoptive mother of the plaintiff managed the estate during the minority of the two sons. The suit is for partition for a half share in the family properties. The main contention of the first defendant is that the plaintiff is only entitled to a fifth share. The Subordinate Judge, relying on an observation in Raja v. Subbaraya (1884) I.L.R. 7 Mad. 268, has held that the two sons were entitled to equal shares.

(2.) The question has been argued at great length before us. I am unable to agree with the Court below. The parties in this case are Sudras. In Raja v. Subbaraya (1884) I.L.R. 7 Mad. 268 the dispute was between the natural son of a brother and the adopted son of another. It is settled law in Madras, notwithstanding Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss (1879) I.L.R. 4 Calc. 425 and Giriapa v. Ningapa (1893) I.L.R. 17 Bom. 100 to the contrary, that by right of representation the adopted son would take the share of his father in competition with the natural son of another member of the joint family. That was the only question that arose for decision in the Madras case. At the end of the judgment, the learned Judges say: If there be such a special rule as is suggested, it is not applicable at all events to Sudras, among whom the adopted son is declared entitled to take an equal share with a legitimate son who is born subsequently to the adoption.

(3.) Apart from the text of Vridha Goutama commented on in the Dattaka Chandrika to which I shall presently refer, I have not been able to find any authority for this statement. On the other hand, Ayyavu Muppanar v. Nilayathakshi Ammal (1862) 1 M.H.C.R. 45 gave the adopted son only a fifth share in the family properties. Apparently this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges. In Bombay and Calcutta, subject to the special doctrine which denies the right of representation to the adopted son in a joint family, it has been held that the share of the adopted son among Sudras is only a fourth of that of the natural son: see Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss (1879) I.L.R. 4 Calc. 425, Giriapa v. Ningapa (1893) I.L.R. 17 Bom. 100 and Bachoo v. Nagindas .