DWARKA NATH versus SHRI LAL CHAND AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 10-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DWARKANAm 
v. 
SBRI LAL CHAND AND OTOE~ 
February 10, 1965 
B [P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH 
AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
c 
n 
E 
F 
G 
U.P. Court of Wards A~, 1912 (Aot 4 of 1912), ss. 37, 53-Scope 
of-Consent of Court of Wards for AdOl>tion-Jf adoption can be 
challenged in Civil Court. 
A widow whose estate was under the charge of the Court of 
Wards, made an adoption and applied under s. 37 of the U.P. Court 
of Wards Act, 1912. for permission to make the adoption. The Col-
lector refused the permission as the grant of authority to adopt, 
by the husband who died in 1901, was not proved. The 1st res-
pondent's father, the nearest reversioner, filed a suit challenging the 
adoption as contrary to s. 37 of the Act and the suit was decreed. 
The widow. thereafter, applied to the Court of Wards for permis-
sion to adopt the appellant. Fresh enquiries about grant of 
authority by the husband to adopt, were made, and permis-
sion was granted ·and the appellant was adopted in 1929. Immediately 
after the adoption of the appellant the Court of Wards, released the 
estate and assumed charge of it again on behalf of the appellant 
who was a minor. On the death of the widow in 1943, the 1st res-
pondent's father filed a suit, challenging the validity of the appel-
lant's adoption on the ground that the widow had no authority from 
her husband to adopt. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the High 
Court, on appeal. affirmed the decree. In appeal to this Court it was 
contended that the conclusion of the Court of Wards to grant per-
mission and the reasons for the decision could not be questioned in 
a civil suit. 
HELD : The Civil Court was competent to reconsider the question 
nf the authority given by the husband, even after the consent of th.e 
Court of Wards. 
Section 37 of the U.P. Court ·of Wards Act affects the competence 
of the wards to make an adoption, and as the consent of the Court 
of Wards is a pre-requisite, any adoption made without such con-
sent must be ineffective. The section, however, does not make the 
sanction of the Court of Wards cure illegalities or breaches of Per-
sonal law. Nor does the sanction make up for incompetence arising 
under the personal law. Those matters would have to be determined 
according to the personal law in a Civil' Court of competent juris-
diction. f30E-G] 
· 
~ction 5~ also is not a bar to such a suit. The section only 
provides that if the Court of Wards gave or refused its consent· to a 
proposed adoption a suit would not lie to cancel the consent or to 
compel it. It does not go to the length of saying that after the con-
sent of the Court of Wards, the adoption itself cannot be questioned 
at all. f30Hl 
In deciding the question of authority, the statements made by 
witnesses at the second enquiry by the Court of Wards for giving 
its consent to adopt, could not be considered by the Civil Court as 
they were not relevant or admissible either under s. 32(7) or s. 157 
of the Indian Evidence Act. f32 D-F; 33 A-Cl 
28 
SUPREME 
.COURT 
REPORTS 
[1965] 3 s.c.R. 
As the 1st respondent's father never llccepted the appellant's 
A 
adoption it could not be said that the suit, filed more than 15 years 
after the adoption during which time the appellant had been con-
>idered by everyone to be legally and validly adopted, ought to !Je· 
dismissed. f33E-G l 
ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 195 of 
1%3. 
B 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 24, 1959 
of the Allahabad High Court in First Appca!No. 76/47. 
C. B. Agarwa/a and J. P. Goyal, for the appellant. 
S. T. Desai, M. V. Goswami and B. C. Misra, for the res-
pondent No. I. 
M. V. Goswami and B. C. Misra, for respondents Nos. 2, 7. 
and 8. 
R. S. Gupta, S. S. Klianduja and Ganpat Rai, for respondent 
No. 9. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. This appeal arises from a suit filed by respon-
dents 1 and 2 for declaration of their rights to the Phulpur Estate, 
c 
D 
for possession of properties belonging to the Estate and for mesne 
profits. The Phulpur Estate is situated in Allahabad District. One E 
Rai Bahadur Rai Pratap Chand who died on January 23, 1901, 
was the Zamindar of this Estate. After his death, his widow Rani 
Gomti Bib; succeeded to the Estate. Rani Gomti Bibi was consi-
derably ilnfiuenoed by her brother Gaya Prasad and priests be-
longing to some temples. In the years following the death of her 
husband, Rani Gomti Bibi made many en
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.