JAGANNATH RAO Vs. RAMBHAROSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated 15 December 1933, which affirmed a decree of the Additional District Judge, Raipur, dated 16 March 1927. The subject-matter of the suit is the estate of one Baboo Rao Dani, deceased. The plaintiffs in the suit were cousins of the deceased, being his paternal uncles' sons, and claimed his estate as reversioners on the death of his widow, Mt. Anandabai who died on 27 November 1924. The respondent Rambharosa, the defendant in the suit, in opposition to the plaintiffs' claim, relied upon an adoption by the widow of Baboo Rao Dani, in April 1920. The sole question for determination is whether this adoption was a valid adoption. The material facts and dates are as follows: Baboo Rao Dani was a Hindu resident of Raipur. He had no son. In 1911 he went to Delhi for the Durbar and before setting out he made a will which dealt, amongst other things, with the question of adoption. The will was written out by Baboo Rao Dani himself. It began thus:

(2.) I am going to Delhi for the Durbar, therefore I am writing the following conditions about my property. I hope that by the grace of God such an occasion will not arise, but strange is the course of time. Therefore my friends and (other) persons should make, after me, arrangements according to what I have put down in writing below ; and what I have written shall be considered valid in law.

(3.) Next followed two pages relating to certain debts and as to his properties and containing directions as to such debts and properties. The will then proceeded and ended thus : After all this is done, a boy should be taken in adoption to perpetuate the name of ancestors and manage the estate. No boy has been yet taken in adoption. It is expected that (any) of my paternal uncles' sons may get a son. If he gives (the boy) my wife should take him in adoption. Seven years' time is allowed for this. After seven years Jiwaji's younger son Bhagwati should be taken in adoption. After the debts, etc., are paid off, persons of my family should allot for ever, property of an income of five hundred rupees to the School Department to preserve my memory for ever, and a boy should be taken in adoption for the rest of the property. This amount (shall) specially (be) for the Maratha caste, not only that, but poor boys of my caste shall have a preferential right. Seven years' time has been allowed for adoption, but if Vyenkat Rao Naik, Rao Bahadur Mahdik, Gajraj Singh and Sadashiv Rao Garad, think that (a boy) should forthwith be taken in adoption, there is no objection to my wife's (adopting a boy immediately) according as they may advise. However the debts should be satisfied and property of an income of five hundred rupees should be set aside for the School Department, first, and a boy should be taken in adoption for the remaining property. If it is decided to take (a boy) in adoption, mauza Kolar should be reserved for my wife and for the maintenance of the adopted boy (the property) should afterwards be placed under the management of the Court of Wards or of panches of whom Vyenkat Rao Naik, should be the sirpanch. The boy should be very well educated. He should be sent to England if possible. If this boy does not exist which God may forbid, any boy can be taken in adoption. The property to be allowed to the School Department should remain in charge of Government. I have executed this will with my free will and pleasure. It should be completely executed after me. My paternal uncles' sons or any one else has no right to my property. I am myself the owner. I had full rights to dispose of my estate as I liked.