LexLAKSHMAN SINGH KOTHARI versus SMT. RUP KANWAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..... • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 477 argument; and if Munshi Ram is to succeed on the principle of representation that principle must be fully worked out and he must for all intents and purposes be deemed to be Hans Raj. As the person who is deemed to be Hans Raj was adopted away and has a brother in the shape of Salig Ram he would not succeed even under the custom recorded in para. 48 of Rattigan's Digest. The position therefore is that neither under Hindu law nor under the custom recorded in para. 48 can Munshi Ram succeed to the property of Nanak Chand. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the courts below a.nd dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-respondent so far as the property of Nanak Chand is concerned. In the circumstances we also order the parties to bear their own costs through- out as the High Court did. Appeal allowed. LAKSHMAN SINGH KOTHARI v. SMT. RUP KANWAR (K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Hindu law-Adoption-Validity-Essential requirements- Ceremony of giving and taking-Delegation of authority. In order that an adoption may be valid under the Hindu ):..aw there must be a formal ceremony of giving and taking. This is true of the regenerate castes as wf!Jl as of the Sudras. Although no particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adop- tive boy and the adoptive parent must receive him, the nature of the ceremony varying according to the circumstances. After exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, the parents may, both or either of them, delegate the physical act of handing over or receiving to a third party. Consequently, in a case where the natural father merely sent the boy in another's company to the house of adoptive father who received him but there was no delegation of the power to give in adoption or the ceremony of giving and taking, Salig Ram v. 1\1 unshi Rani Wanchoo ]. l\1arch 22. 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) I96I Held, that no valid adoption had taken place. Shoshinath Ghose v. Krishnasundari Dasi, (1880) I. L. R. 6 Lakshman Singh Cal. 38r, Krishna Rao v. Sundara Siva Rao, (1931) L. R. 58 I. A. Kothari r48, Vijiarangam v. Lakshuman, (1871) 8 Born. H. C.R. 244, v. Shamsing v. Santabai, (r.901) I. L. R. 25 Born. 551, and Viy- Smt. Rup Kanwar yamma v. Suryaprakasa Rao, I. L. R. r942 Mad. 608, referred to. Biradhmal v. Prabhabhati, A. LR. r939 P.C. r952, explained. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 430 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 1953, of the former Judi- cial Commissioner, Ajmer, in Civil Second Appeal No. 25 of 1951. C. B. Agarwala, S.S. Deedwani and K. P. Gupta, for appellant. Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, B. L. Aren and Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 1961. March 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba llao J. SUBBA RAo, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Com- missioner at Ajmer dated October 27, 1953, confirming the judgment of the District Judge, Ajmer, and set- ting aside that of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, in Civil Suit No. 48 of 1944. The following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the contentions of the parties: I Sujan Singh I Moti Singh (defendant) Aman Singh I I Sobhag Singh I Zalim Singh I Lakshman Singh (plaintiff) It is not necessary to give the other branches of the genealogical tree. It will be seen from the genealogy that plaintiff Lakshman Singh's grandfather, Sobhag • • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 479 Singh, is defendant Moti Singh's paternal uncle. In z96z the year 1923, Sujan Singh was aged about 70 years, S h Lakshman Singh and Moti Singh was about 50 years, and Moti ing 's Kothari wife, Rup Kanwar alias Rup Kanwar Bai, the res- v. pondent herein, who was subsequently brought on Smt. Rup Kanwar record in place of Moti Singh after his death, was - about 45 years old. Moti Singh had no son and, there- Subba Rao J. fore, Sujan Singh was anxious to have a boy well- versed in vedic-lore to be adopted to his son Moti Singh to perpetuate his line. On February 14, 1923, the plaintiff was brought from his father's house to the house of Sujan Singh in Ajmer by one Hira Lal and left there. On March 28, 1923, the plaintiff was admitted as a student in an institution called Gurukul Kangri. He was educated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.