DNYANU PANDU CHAVAN Vs. TANU BALARAM CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law argued in this second appeal is whether the adoption of Babu (defendant No. 11) by Tanu (defendant No. 2) is valid, according to Hindu law.

(2.) The facts relating to this point are briefly these: One Balaram Gujar had three illegitimate sons, Pandu, Eaoji and Krishna. We are not concerned with Raoji at all. Krishna left a son named Dnyanu. He is found to have been adopted by Pandu in 1907. Pandu had a son Bala, who died in 1903 leaving two widows named Banu and Tanu. It appears from the recitals in the document of authority passed by Pandu that Tanu had au infant son who died some time before 1910. Bala died in union with his father. The infant son does not appear to have attained the age of ceremonial competence. In 1910 Pandu authorised Tanu to make an adoption. She adopted Babu in 1911. Panda died in 1913. Dnyanu, the adopted son of Pandu, filed the present suit claiming the property of Pandu to the exclusion of defendant 11.

(3.) The question as to the validity of the adoption of defendant 11 was decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that Babu, who was a legitimate son of his natural father, could not be validly adopted as Pandu was an illegitimate son of his father and as there would be no inter-marriage and inter-dining between legitimately born Mahrathas and bastard Mahrathas . In appeal the First Class Subordinate Judge with Appellate Powers did not accept the ground taken up by the trial Court, and held the adoption to be valid.