LexGOSWAMI SHREE VALLABHALALJI versus GOSWAMINI SHREE MAHALAXMI BAHUJI MAHARAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. . +' 3s.O .. R. $t11'RE~ oou:RIJ.I R:li1PORTS GOSWAMI SHREE VALLABHALALJI 'I/, GOSWAMINI SHREE MAHALAX.MI BAHU.JI MAHARAJ (K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 641 Adoption-Goda Dattak Oustoms-W idow'• sialtr'• huaband-If can be adopted a• aon. The first respondent on the death of her husband who was a descendant of the famous Vaishnava teacher VaUabha- charyaji and was possessed of certain Devattar properties be- long to the Thakur of which he was the Shebait, adopted her sister's husband as a son under the Goda Dattak Custom of adoption which prevailed amongst the Vallabhacharya com- munity. The appellant who was the own brother of the decea· sed adoptive father contended inter alia that under the Goda Dattak custom a widow could not adopt her sister's husband as a son to her husband, that the adoptee should belong to the family of the adopter and that the widow should obtain the consent of her husband's sapindas for the adoption. Held, that the rule in Dattaka Mimansa against the adoption of the son of a woman who could not be married because of Viruddha Samandha relationship is recommenda .. tory and even if the limitation of the orthodox Dattak adop- tion apply to Goda adoption there is no bar to the adoption of the wife's sister's husband. Mst. Abhiraj Kuer v. Devendra Singh, C.A. No. 379 of 1961 decided on 1.5-9-61, referred to. In the present case it has not been proved that under the Goda Da ttak customs a custom existed barring the adop- tion of members of other Vallabhachari families if it were possible to advpt members from the adoptive father's family. As in the present case there was authority from the husband to adopt the question of the consent of the sapindas of the husband did not arise even if he was governed by the Madras School of Mitakshara. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 23, 1952, of the Bom- . bay High Court in First Appeal No. 57 of 1949. S. T. Desai and I. N. Shroff for the appellant. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, J. B. Dadachan,ii, · S, N.. Andley,. Rameshwar Nath and P, L. Vohra, fqr the respondents. 19111 :-.--:-- Go;wami v,.LJ3b\3l1li. ., v. Go.twamini Siut1 l.lahalcxmi Bchuji :\faharaj f>3r :Jupla J L SUPRE~ counr ltEPORTS [1002) 1961. Se1ltcmber 13. The Judgment of the "'-... -~~ Court was deliverC'd Ly DAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant and the Second respondent arc both descendants ofVallnbhachary«Ji, a grnat Vaishnava teacher who flc.urished more than 400 years ago. v,.Jlalihadiaryaji loft his native place near Clmrnparany1i in South India, an<l c.m1ing to Gujarat and othl'r parts of India cstaliJi,herl shrines for the worship of Vishnu at se\•eml pbee.,. His descendants bee,1me the priests and Shcbaits of Huch shrines and also of other shrine~ establi~hed thl'rcaft!'r. These came to be knawn as Ga.di~. While ea.ch of thc'n Ga.dis had a temple for tho wor8hip of Vi~hnu, considnaLJe properties, movable and immov:ihlo were acquired for th1·m from time to timl' by gifLorotherwi~c. One such shi·ino wJ.s e:;tn,bltsherl more than 100 yeitrs ago at Na<liad and n,bont the year 189!) A. D.: a descendant of Vallabhachary1~ji who on adoptibn took tho name of Annirnd1lhalalji llforlidharji became tho head of the Xadiad shrine and "'as thus possessed of tho movn,blc anrl immovablo properties appertaining to the Garli. This gentle- man al:;o became by adoption head of :mother shrine known as the Moti Havcli at Jamnagar in the year l!Jl3 and then t<lOk a slightly different name Annirudhalalji l3rijeshji. Both these adoptions were in accordance with the Godr. Dattak custom c;f adoption which pr<waill'd among the members d the Vallabhacharya cummnnity. Aniruddhalalji Murlidharji (alias Aniruddhalalji Brijcshji) died on December li, l!l3r. ielwin>: a widow !'IIahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj, who is tlio first respondent before us. -- The question of n,dopting an h«ir to him assumed import.anco immediately on his death and it appears there' was some t~lk of :!dopting by tho Goda Dattak cnst,om one of the sons of the present ..,.__ '· appellrnt, who it is necessary to ml'ntion, was tho natural brother of Aniruddhalalji. The talks how- ever proved fruitless and ultimately on Juno 1, 1946, - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 643 ., . ' I the seconq respondent who as already stated was also a descendant of Valla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.