LexG. APPASWAMT CHETTIAR AND ANR. versus R. SARANGAPANI CHETTIAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
520
G. APPASWAMT CHETTIAR AND ANR.
v.
R. SARANGAPANI CHETTIAR & ORS.
March 22, 1978
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J
Hindu Law--Power of a llirulu wido•v to adupt-Co11_\'{''lf of .~apindos-
Consultation lVith agnates-111 capacity of wo111en for independent deci.5io11-
Works & Phrases "Poutra, Pouthratlii Sa11tlwthies" lrhetlier includes an aJovted
SOil.
One G. Chettiar died leaving a daughter (defendant-I) and grand sons of
sister (Appellant).
In 1953 the Ist defendant adopted a son who is the second
defendant.
The appellant, filed the present suit challenging the adoption by the
Ist defendant of the 2nd defendant and .ilienations of properties by Ist and 2nd
defendants, in favour of the 3rJ and 4th defendants. The validity of adoption
\Yas questioned by the appellants on various grounds.
The main ground pressed
in this Court is that there was want of consent of sapindas of the husband of
the Ist <lefendant and that the adoption \vas mrrde for the purpose of depriving
the sapindas of their right to prooerty and not on any consideration of spiritual
benefit to her husband. The trial court found that the refusal of the appellants
to give their consent to adoption was improper and that they had niore or less
abused their fiduciary position.
The High Court found that the adoption was
true but not valid, since other agnates of husband of the Ist defendant were
not consulted and their consent obtained. The court left open the construction
of Will of G. Chettiar and the question as to whether the 2nd defendant was
t:otitlcd to clai.in under the Will of G. Chettiar.
The Court found that the
alienation made in favour of defendants 3 and 4 were valid. On an appeal filed
by
defendant~ 1 and 2 to the High Court, the .High Court held that the
adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant was true and valid but
agreed that the contention of the appellants that the 2nd defendant as the adopted
son of the Ist defendant could not take any bequest under the \Vill, but as
Sethu Chettiar the adoptive father of the second defendant took the vested
intere~t under the Will, the defendant 2 will be entitled to that interest as
the adopted son.
The challenge to the alienation in favour of defendants 3 and
4 \V<t'> 11egatiYed.
Dismissing the appeal
1JELD :
1. The power of a Hindn wido\V to ~1dopt a son to his. husband is
\.Vell recognised in Hindu la\V. When the adoption is authorised by the husband
of the widow, the widow's power is co-extensive with that of her husband.
Equally when the consent of the husband's kinsmen is obtained the \Vidov/s
power is co-extensive \Vith that of her husb3nd.
(522 F-Gl
Balusu Gurulingaswa111i v. ·Ba/usu Ru111alakshnuu11n1a, l.L.R. 22 ?\.fad. 398
appro,'ed.
2. The necessity for obtaining the assent of the sapindas has been laid down
in Ramnad ca.."e, ( 1868) 12 l\.1JA 397, 442 referred. The reason for requiring
the assent of the sapindas is to see that the adoption was a bonafide performance
of the religious duty and not due to any capricious action by the widow.
In
the case of a joint fan1ily it is necessary that the widow should consult the
elders in the husband's family particularly the father of the husband. But when
the family is divided the duty of the widow is to consult the agnates of the
husband at the first instance.
If the consent of the nearer agnates is withheld
for capricious reasons she can proceed to consult and obtain the consent of
remoter agnates.
The appellants were consulted by defendant No. 1 but they
refused their consent.
The first appellant who exan1ine:rl himself as P.\V. 1
!'tated that he withheld his consent because he \vas nfrairl that he would lose
his reversionary right to the estate.
Jt is also dear that the appellant was
negntiating a price through several persons for giving his consent.
The rrial
,
...
•
)
-·
Al'l'ASWAMI I'. SARANGAl'ANI (Ka:lasanz, J.)
5 21
Court as \vell as the l-ligh Court rightly ca111c to the conclusion that the appel-
lants improperly \\•ithheld their consent to the adoption.
The contention that
the \Vidow \Vas induced by improper n1otive in adopting negatived \Vith reference
to the statement of the Ist defendant stating that she had adopted 2nd defendant
for the $Piritual benefit of her husband. The statement by her under the stress
of the cross-examination that she resorted to adoption for putting an end to
the -troubles by the sapiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.