LexS. S. MUNNA LAL versus S. S. RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
CommiJsioner ef
Jncem,•lax
Bomb'!)' Ci17 l
v.
B•i S;irU..«i
K. 1'111:•
Satf.ar .1.
'
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
that the a;;sessee's Taxable profits on the sale of
the shares earlier held as investment are the diffe-
rence bet\rncn the sale price and the cost price, that
is, the price at which she ha.<l actually bought those
shares.
BY COl7RT : In accordance with the opinion
of the majority, this appeal is dismiBSed with
costs.
Appeal dismi8sed.
--
1962
S. S. MUNNA LAL
Ft6t11t1Ty 2.1.
v.
S. S. RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS
(S. K. DAS, M. HmAYATULI,AH a.nd J.C. S1uH, JJ.)
Hindu Lau.~.Jai11s-Adoption-1Vidow, if can odopt without
express authority of husband-l'rrliminary decree. for partition
dr:clarinu u·idotti's sharr-JJ'hrther share ''possr.ssed" by widow--
Death of u·i1lou,•-/f shrzrr rpt;('.r/s to es/11.l"-llindu ,'-;ucces.riion
Act, I:9;iG (30 of J95G), ss. 4, U, J/i ond 16.
· G, a Digambcr Jain of the Porwal sect, died in 1934
leaving behind his widuw Smt. K, his son G who died in 1939
and three grandsons M, P and R.
In 19j2 M's son S filed a
suit for partition of the joinr family properties.
Rajkumar,
c1aiming to b~ a son of P adoptr-d by his widow, claimed a
I/4th share in the joint family property. The adoption was
challenged on the ground that no express authority had been
gi\'en by P to his widow to adopt. The trial court held that
no express authority \vas required by a son less Jain widow to
adopt a son and that the adoption was duly and properly
made.
.\ccorciingly. a
preliminary dec~e declaring
the
shares of Smt. K, the branch of M, the branch of R and of
Rajkumar to he lf4th each was passed.
Mand others pre-
ferred an appeal to the
Iligh Court mainly against the
findings on the question of adoption.
During the pendcncy
of the appeal, the Hindu Succession ,\ct, 1955, came into
force.
Shortly thereafter Smt. K
died. The High Court
upheld -:.he decision of the trial court on the question of the
adoption of Rajk11mar.
With respect to the share of Smt. K
the High Court held that her interest declared by the prelimi·
nary decree \Vas inchoate, that she never bcca1ne "possc.ssed"2
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT 11EPORTS
419
of any share within the meaning of s. 14 of the Act and that
11142
it remained joint family property which became divisible
s. S, Munna Lal
amongst the parties proportionately to their shares. The
•.
appellants contended that the adoption of Rajkumar was
S. 8. Rajkumar
invalid as no custom applicable to the Porwal sect of the
J ains had been established empowering a widow to adopt
without the authority of her husband and that the I/4th share
of Smt. K declared by the preliminary decree had become her
absolute property by virtue of s. 14 of the Act and upon her
death it descended to her grandsons M and R to the exclusion
of other parties.
Held, that the adoption of Rajkumar was valid.
A son•
less Jain widow could adopt a son without the express
authority of her husband.
Such a custom among the Jains
(not domiciled in the States of Madras and the Punjab) has
been recognised by judicial decisions spread over a period
longer than a century.
Though none of these decisions rela~
ted
to
the Porwal
sect of .Jabalpur
to which
the
. parties belonged. They laid down a general custom of the Jains
which were applicable to the parties.
The decisions proceed-
ed not upon any custom peculiar to any locality or to any
sect of the Jains but upon general custom which had by ·1ong
acceptance become part of the. law applicable to them. Where
a custom is repeatedly brought to the notice of the Courts,
1he courts may held that custom introduced into the law
without the necessity of proof in each individual ca5 e.
Pemraj v. Mst. Chand Kanwar, (1947) L. R. 74 l. A. 224
and Mangibai Gulabchand v. Suganchand Bhikamchand, A.LR.
(•1948) P. C. 177, relied on.
Sheokuarbai v. Jeoraj, A.LR. ( 1921) P .C. 77, Sara<wathi
Ammal v . .Jagadambal, (1953) S.C.R. 1939, Maharajah Govind·
nath Ray v. Gulal Chand, (1833) 5 Se!. Rep. 276, Bhag1vanda,s
Tejmal v. Rajmal Alias Hiralal Lachmindas, (1873) 10 Born.
H.C. Rep. 241, Shea Singh Rai v. Mst. D~<ho and Moor,iri Lal
(1878) L.R. 5 I. A. 37, Lakhmi Chand v. Gatto Bai, (1886)
I.L.R. 8 All. 319, Manik Chand Golecha v. Jagit Settani,
(1889) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 518, Hn' nabh Pershad alias Rajajee v.
Ma.ngilDa<, (189q) I. L. R. 27 Cal. 379, ManohmLal v.
Banarsi Das (1907) I. L. R. 29 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.