LexJUPUDI VENKATA VIJAYA BHASKAR versus JUPUDI KESAVA RAO (D) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B JUPUDI VENKATA VIJAYA BHASKAR V. JUPUDI KESA VA RAO (D) AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 19, 2003 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGARWAL, JJ.] Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956-Sections 17, 4 and 1 O(iv )-Appellant adopted under an ante-adoption agreement by respondent and his wife-Certain properties settled between the appellant and the C niece of the respondents' wife, who was later married to him as per the agreement-Agreement also stated that appellant shall have no further claim over other properties of the respondent-Appellant filed a suit challenging the agreement contending that such concession amounted to a payment or reward in consideration of adoption-Trial Court dismissed D the suit-Decision upheld by High Court-On appeal Held, provision enacted with the object to prevent trafficking of children-Such ante- adoption agreement not prohibited-Agreement does not show that any payment was made or agreed to be made-An agreement by which an adopted son agrees not to set up any claim on certain items belonging to the adoptive family not covered-£ very kind of agreement between a major E adopted and would-be adoptive father not prohibited Section 4-0verriding effect of the Act-Position prior to enforcement of the Act-Major adopted son by an agreement could consent to a /imitation of his right in the property of his adoptive father or any other F condition-Such an agreement was legal and binding on the adoptive son. The respondent and his wife brought the appellant to their house in May 1957. He was brought up along with the niece of the respondent's wife. An ante-adoption agreement was entered into between the respondent and the appellant on 14.3.1962 after he attained majority. G The respondents' wife had already settled certain properties by separate settlement deeds in favour of her niece and the appellant. The appellant and the niece of the respondent's wife married each other, as per the adoption agreement, on 24.3.1962, which was also the date of adoption. The adoption agreement had further stated that in respect H of the properties shown in the schedule therein, the appellant had 948 l - l J. V. V. BHASKAR v. J.K. RAO 949 agreed not to advance any claim or raise any dispute and that the A respondent would have absolute right to those properties without any limitation. The appellant later on instituted a suit challenging the validity of the said ante-adoption agreement on the ground that the same was hit by Section 17 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The suit was dismissed and the High Court upheld the B decision. Hence this appeal. The appellant contended that the ante-adoption agreement was prohibited as he had given up his rights in the respondent's properties to which he would have been entitled after adoption and the same amounted to a payment or reward in consideration of the adoption hit C by Section 17(1) of the Act; that the legal position had changed after the enactment of the Act and it was no longer permissible to enter into such an ante-adoption agreement; and that Section 4 of the Act clarified that principles of Hindu Law or interpretation thereof prevailing prior to the commencement of the Act ceased to have any D effect. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. Prior to enforcement of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, Section 500 of Principles of Hindu Law stipulated E that where the adopted son was a major at the time of adoption, he may by an agreement with the adoptive father or the adopting widow made before the adoption, consent to a limitation of his rights in the property of his adoptive father. The settled law before the commence- ment of the Act was that when a person of full age at the time of F . adoption agrees or assents to the condition under agreement entered into with the adoptive father, such agreement was legal and binding on the adoptive son. [952-D-E] Kashibai Ramchandra Ghatge v. Tatya Genu Pawar & Ors., AIR G (1916) Bom. 312; Pandurang Sakharam Thakur v. Narmadabai Ramkishna Keluskar, AIR (1932) Dom. 571 and Kanduru Venkata Soma/ah v. Kanduru Ramasubbamma, AIR (1984) A.P. 313, referred to. 2. Section 17 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 has been enacted with a view to prevent trafficking of children. The H 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUP.P. 3 S.C.R. A ante-adoption agreement does not show any payment was either made or agreed to be made by the appellant to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.