LexABHIRAJ KUER versus DEBENDRA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l : S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 627 it is not likely now that the ti:ial will take a long time. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent is erroneous and should be set aside. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court granting bail to the respon- dent. As he has already been arrested under the interim order passed by th;s Court, no further order in this connection is necessary. We, however, direct that the Sessions Judge will take steps to see that as far as possible the trial of the respon- dent starts within two months of the date of this order. Appeal allowed. ABHIRAJ KUER v. DEBENDRA SINGH (K. N. WANCHoo, K .C. DAS GuPTA and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Hindu Law-:--Banaras School of Mitak8hara law-:--A.doptio,. of wife'• sister's daughter's son-Validity. The appellant as reversioner sued for a declaration that the adoption of respondent 1 by respondent 2 to her deceased husband was invalid in law ond respondent 1 acquir- ed no right to the properties left by the husband ofrespondent 2. The parties were governed by the Banaras School of ~ Mitakshara HinC:u law and respondent 1 was the sister's daugh- ter's son of respondent 2. The question was whether a wife's 1ister's daughter's e>n could be validly adopted to a person governed by the Banaras School of Mitakshara Hindu Law. The High Court answered it in the affirmative and dismissed the suit. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant in this Court on Nanda Pandit's Dattak Mimansa which specifically excluded a wife's sister's daughter's son for the purpose of adoption on the ground of incongruous relationship (Viruddha Sambandha) as also on the text of Ashvalayana interdicting .... ~ marriage with a sapinda, sagotra and viruddha sambandha girl !uch as a wife's sister's daughter on which the author of Dattak Mimansa had relied. It was contended that when a positive statement in the text was followed by a nee;-ativc one, the latter 1161 Tl!e State v. Ca;tain ]agjit Singh Wanchoo ]. 11~1 1961 Abhir:.y KlUr v. DLhPldra Siritli fi28 SUPRE~fE.COURT REPORTS [l062] containing the prohibition must be held to be mandatory al).d 'fl"' that in any case since the prohibition a~ain'it marriagr. to a sapinda or sagotra girl '"-'a5 mandatory,· the prohibition against marriage to a Viruddha Sambandha girl must also be equally ao. !ltld, that the contentions were ,...-ithout substance and must fail. Adoption of a ,.,..ifc's sister's <laughter's son is legally \'aiirl under the Banaras School of Mitakshara Hindu law. '.'Jone of the t easons \vbich rendered marriage to a sapinda or sa!_!otra gir! invalid \\·ere present in the case of a n1arriage to a \'iruddha Sambandha girl and the rule against marrying a \.'iruddha Samhandha girl '"'·as not intended by its author to br mandatory. The extension of the rule of \'iruddha Sambandha to adoption made by Nanda P.rndit was not meant by him to be mandatory. Minak&hi v, Ramanada, (1886) I.L.R. II ~Ian. 49, distin- guished. l!dd, further, that the marriage of a Hindu with his wi(c's sister's daugh1er is not invalid in Hindu law. Ragavtndra Rau v.Jayaram Rau, (1897) l.L.R. 20 ~lad. 283, referred to. Case-la,,· revie,,·ed. CIYIL Arr~:LLATE Jnusorcnox: Civil Appeal No. :nn of Hl."i8. Appeal from tho judgment and decree dated J:muary 17, U);j6 of the Patn:1 High Conrt in Appeal from Original lkcrec No. 169 of I !J47. L. K. Jha, D. I'. Singh, R. K. Garg, Jf. K. Ramanmrlhi and S. C. Agrmcal, for the appel- lant. H. C. l'msfl.d, for the re~ponclrnt. Hllll. September l 5. 'l'h<' ,Judgment of tho Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, ,T.-Can <1 wife'~ sister's daughter's son be yaJidly adopted to a person governed by the Bcuarns School of the Mitaksharn Hindu Law ? That is tho main question raised in this appeal brought on a certificate granted by the High Court at Patna. The plaintiff8 who would succeed to the properties left by Balm Ram Singh on tho death ... - "-· 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 629 -~ of his widow but -for the adoption of Devendra Singh which this widow made on June 9, 1935, brought the present suit for a declaration that Devendra Singh was not adopted by the second defendant, Babu Ram Singh's widow and that in any case, the adoption is invalid in law and so Devtndra Singh acquired no right in the pro- -~ perties left by Babu Ram Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.