SAU ASHABAI KATE versus VITHAL BHIKA NADE

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 17-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SAU ASHABAI KATE 
v. 
VITHAL BHIKA NADE 
OCTOBER 17, 1989 
[L.M. SHARMA AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: Remarriage of son's widow-Power of son's mother 
to adopt-Whether revives. 
The disputed property belonged to a joint Hiodu family, governed 
by Mitakshra law of which one Bhiku and his son were coparceners. 
Bhiku died leaving behind Parvati his widow and a son, Balu. Soon 
after, Balo too died, leaving behiod his widow Lilabai who gave birth to 
a posthumous daughter, the present appellant. Sometime later Lilahai 
remarried. Thereupon Parvati, Bhiku's surviving wife adopted Vithal, 
the present respondent io this appeal. The appellant, Ashabai on attain-
ing majority filed the present suit for a decree for possession of proper-
ties with mesne profits and a decree for money and challenged the 
power of her grand-mother to adopt. 
The trial court upheld the adoption of the defendant as valid and 
dismissed the suit. The plaiotiff Ashabai challenged the decision by an 
appeal. The Appellate court allowed the appeal and passed a decree in 
her favour grantiog the reliefs claimed. Thereupon the defendants chal-
lenged the decree of the first appellate court io the High Court. The 
High Court ruled that a Hiodu widow's power to adopt is revived the 
moment there is nobody to continue the line, and thus the adoption of 
the respondent was found legal and valid and the decree in favour of the 
plaiotiff-appellant was set aside and her suit dismissed. Hence this 
appeal by special leave by the plaiotiff. 
Allowing the appeal io part by decreeing the suit for half share io 
the suit properties with mesne profits this Court, 
G 
HELD: There does not appear to by any scope for holdiog that on 
the remarriage of the son's widow the power of son's mother to adopt 
revives. [467F] 
In the instant case, on the death of Balu, the responsibility for the 
continuance of the family line fell on his widow Lilabai hy the power of 
H adoption vesting in her and the power of Parvati to adopt was extin' 
464 
S.A. KATE v. V.B. NADE [SHARMA, J.) 
465 
guished permanently and is not revived even on Lilal!ai's remarriage. 
A 
Consequently the adoption of the first defendant was invalid in the eye 
oflaw and he-did not get any interest in the suit properties. [468B] 
The properties belonged to the joint family of which Bhiku was a 
coparcener. On his death in 1942 bis wife Parvati got under S. 3(2) of the 
Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, the same interest as 
B 
Bhiku had in the joint family properties. [468C] 
The interest which initially devolved on Parvati, however, was 
limited in nature known as the Hindu Women's estate. On passing of 
the Hindu Succession Act, 1957 she became full owner thereof. [4680] 
. 
Ram Chandra v. Murlidhar, [1937] 39 Born. L.R. 599; Gurunath · C 
v.Kamlabai, [1955] l SCR ll35; Amrendra Mansingh v. Sanatan 
Singh, [1933] L.R. 60 I.A. 242; Ramkrishna Ramchandra v. Shamrao, 
[1902] I.L.R. 26 Born. 526 and Bapuji v. Gangaram, [1941] I.L.R. 
Nagpur 178, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1846 
of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.1972 of the Bombay 
High Court in Appeal No. 512 of 1965. 
V .N. Gan pule and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Appellant. 
V.A. Bobde, Uday U. Lalit and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed 
against the decision of the Bombay High Court dismissing her suit for 
possession of the properties detailed in the plaint. 
D 
E 
F 
2. The disputed properties belonged to a joint Hindu family 
G 
governed by Mitakshara law of which one Bhiku and his son Balu were 
coparceners. Bhiku died on June 6, 1942 leaving behind his widow 
Parvati, the defendant No. 2 in the present suit and Batu who dies soon 
after his father's demise on July 24, 1942. In November 1942 Balu's 
widow Lilabai gave birth to a posthumous daughter who is the present 
appellant: Sometime later Lilabai remarried and thereupon Parvati 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
adopted Vithal, the first defendant in the present suit, in the year 
1949. After attaining majority, appellant Ashabai filed the present suit 
for a decree for possession of the properties with mesne profits and a 
decree for money for Rs.3,000 as expenses of her marriage. She chal-
lenged the power of her grand-mother to adopt the first defendant on 
th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.