LexGURUNATH ALIAS BHIMAJI versus KAMALABAI, KOM KENCHANGAUDA NADGAUDAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ' ' :s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1135 227. A.s a result of our decision, the Election Commis- ·sion will now proceed to hold a fresh election. This appeal must accordingly be allowed, the deci- sions of the High Court and the Tribunal quashed .and the whole election set aside. The parties will bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed. GURUNATH alias BHIMAJI ti. KAMALABAI, KOM KENCHANGAUDA NADGAUDAR AND OTHERS. :[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Hindu Law-Adoption--Widow's power to adopt-When such power terminates. It is well-settled according to Hindu Law that a widow's - power to adopt comes to an end by the interposition of -a grandson or the son's widow competent to continue the line by adoption. The mother's authority to adopt is not extinguished by the mere fact that her son had attained ceremonial competence. The power to adopt does not depend upon any question of vest- ing or divesting of property. The decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil (L.R. 70 I.A. 232) is not sound in so far as it relates to the proper- ties inherited from collaterals prior to adoption. In respect of such properties the adopted son can lay no claim on the ground of rela- tion back. Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 1), followed. Amarendra Mansing v. Sanatan ( [ 1933] L. R. 60 I.A. 242), explained, Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramcliandra Patil ([1943] LR. 70 I.A. 232), not relied on in part. Bhoobun Moyee v. Ram Kishore ([1865] 10 M.I.A. 279); Pudma Coomari v. Court of Wards ([1881] L.R.81.A.229); Thayammaland Kuttisami Aiyan v. Venkatarama Aiyan ([1887] L.R. 14 I.A. 67); Tarachum v. Suresh Chunder ( [ 1889] L.R. 16 I.A. 166); Ramkrishna 'I954 Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Syed Ahmad lshaque and Ot/ws. Venkatarama Ayyar J· Dtcemb..- 10. 1954 Gurunath V• Kamalabai. 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19551 Ramchandra v. Shamrao ([1902] l.L.R. 26 Born. 526); Madana Mohana v. Purushothama Deo ([1918] L.R. 45 I.A. 156); Vijaysingji v. Shivsangji ([1935] L.R. 62 I.A. 161); Bapuji v. Gangaram ([1941J l.L.R. Nagpur 178); and Prem fagat Kuer v. Harihar Bakhsh Singh ([1945] l.L.R. 21 Lucknow 1), referred to. C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1smcTioN: Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1953. Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court's Order dated the 24th September, 1951 from the Judg. ment and Decree dated the 2nd day of September 1949 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 274 of 1948 from Original Decree ansmg out of the Decree dated the 30th day of July, 1946 of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Hubli in Special Suit No. 56 of 1944. K. R. Bengeri and Sardar Bhadur for the appel- lant. S. B. fathar and I. N. Shroff for respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 1954. December 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.-This appeal ra1Ses a question of importance "whether a widow can exer- cise a power of adoption conferred on her or possessed by her at any time during her life irrespective of any devolution of property or changes in the family or other circumstances and even after a grandson has come on the scene but has subsequently died without leaving a widow or a son". The situation in which this question arises can pro- perly be appreciated by reference to the following· genealogy: 'y .. r - ' ' • ' ·v Dyamappa I ------- ' Kalasappa I Krishtarao Radhabai = Gangabai (Deft. 2) (Deft. l) (Senior widow) (Junior widow) ---~I ____ / Gurunath ! J • (Appellant adopted Kamalabai Yamunabai J by Gangabai on (Resp. l) (Resp. 2) I 18-11-53) Dattatraya (son) (died 1913) =Sundarabai (died after her husband in 1913) I I ( Kalasappa (predeceased Datta tra ya) I Jagannath (died 1914) I I I Girimaji I , Hanamanta i -, Malhar Ganesh (Resp. 5) (Resp. 3) I I Venkate1h Hanamant (Resp. 4) (Resp. 6) 1954 Gurnnath ,. Kamalabai. .Ma!iajan C.J. 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS F19"55] Gurunath, the plaintiff, claims that he was adopted in 1943 by Gangabai, widow of Krishtarao. Krishtarao died in 1890, leaving him surviving two widows Radha- bai and Gangabai and a son Dattatraya. Dattatraya died in 1913 leaving him surviving a widow Sundara- bai and a son Jagannath.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.