BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are no facts in dispute in this case. The plaintiffs; now appellants, brought the suit to establish their title as reversionary heirs of Madho Singh as against the first defendant, a boy who was adopted by him in the Dattaka form. The boy is the natural son of Madho's mother's sister. The sole question is whether the adoption of such a relation is allowed by Hindu law. The Subordinate Judge held that it is not allowed. A Full Bench of six judges of the High Court has decided that it is allowed. Four judges, namely, Edge C.J. and Knox, Blair and Burkitt JJ. being of that opinion, against Banerji and Aikman JJ. who are of the contrary opinion. Their Lordships are under the disadvantage of hearing the case without any help from the respondents, who have not appeared. But this disadvantage is much lessened by the elaborate fulness of the reasons assigned by Edge C.J. for the conclusion which he reached in favour of the respondent.

(2.) THE question is of the same nature as that which has just been disposed of in the preceding cases from Madras and Allahabad. But it depends upon a different set of texts, and the course of decision in India has been very different. It is agreed on all hands that the prohibition contended for extends only to the three twice-born classes, and not to the most numerous class of all, the Sudras. The parties here are Kshatriyas, governed by the Benares School of Law. It is also agreed that, as regards capability to be adopted, the sons of sisters, sons of daughters, and sons of maternal aunts, stand on the same footing, and that the authorities which apply to any of these classes apply to all.

(3.) IN par. 17 of the same section, the same work quotes the sage Saunaka, who, after pointing out from what classes adoptions should be made, says: