YAMUNA BAI Vs. JAMUNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-appellant Yamuna Bai, as is admitted by the plaintiff-respondent in her deposition as P.W. 17, was the senior wife of Maruti. The respondent, Jamuna Bai, was the junior wife. It will be convenient to refer to the wives as Y and J. Maruti adopted a son, Ramchandra, on 10th August 1916. Maruti, as the plaint states, died in 1921 and at his death Ramchandra became the sole owner of the property. Ramchandra died in 1923. The plaintiff's case is that she and the appellant were both mothers of Ramchandra and therefore succeeded to the estate. The suit is for partition of the estate. It is admitted that the respondent took part in the ceremony of adoption. The finding of the trial Court with which we are concerned is contained in para. 16 of the judgment: The evidence on the record shows that the plaintiff as well as defendant 1 took part in the ceremony of adoption. Both of them are thus the adoptive mothers of Ramchandra Sao. The plaintiff is not a stepmother and she is entitled to a share.

(2.) IT is necessary to refer to the pleadings and evidence in order to make clear the meaning of this finding. The defendant stated that the plaintiff who is the junior wife was excluded from the ceremony of adoption. The plaintiff rejoined that she took full part in that ceremony. The learned Judge has accepted the story told by the plaintiff's witnesses, they state that both wives were present but do not appear to state that they took an active part in the ceremony. Baliram (P.W. 4) states that Marutisao's two wives were sitting in his left side and Y was next Marutisao when the boy was placed on his lap. The deed of adoption prepared at the time (Ex. D. 1) states that Ramchandra's guardian was his adoptive mother Y. The Judge states that this fact does not indicate deliberate exclusion of the plaintiff and later on says that no reason is shown why Maruti Sao should have excluded the plaintiff. The finding, then, really is that while the 'defendant is admitted to have take part in the ceremony of adoption the plaintiff was not excluded from that ceremony.

(3.) THEIR Lordships clearly state that in their opinion no reasonable doubt exists regarding this proposition: Only one wife can receive a child in adoption so as to step into the position of being its adoptive mother.