LexTAHSIL NAIDU & ANR. versus KULLA NAIDU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D E fl 499 TAHSIL NAIDU & ANR. v. KULLA NAIDU & ORS. September 18, 1969 (V. BHARGAVA, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J Hindu Law-Adoption ~v wl'doll', with sapindas' consent-Principles cpplicable-Nearest sapinda, woman-If her consent necessary to validate adoption. A Hindu widow in the Dravida country, who had no authority from her hc15band to adopt, adopted a son with the consent of two out of three )f her nearest male sapindas in 1955. The two sapindas gave their written consent in re·sponse to her letters asking for their consent wherein she stated that the object of the adoption was the proper pe'rformance of cere- monies for the benefit of her husband and his ancestors. They also signed the adoption deed which mentioned the purpose of the adoption. The widow, however, did not obtain the. consent of her husband's grandmother, who was nearer in degree than these two sapindas. On the question of the validity of the adoption, HELD : (I) The validity of an adoption has to be judged by spiritual rather than tempofai considerations. But, in a case where the widow makes an. adoption after obtaining her sapindas' consent, her motive need not be inquired into because, the very fact that the sapindas had given their consent was a guarantee that the adoption was being made for proper reasons. f505 G·HJ (2) It is only when a sapinda refuses consent that it becomes relevant to see whether the !refusal was justified on the ground that the adoption was not for proper objects. Where a sapinda gives consent, the very fact that the consent was given implies that the adoption was considered desirable and was being resorted to by the widow for spiritual con·siderations. [509 C-EJ In the present case, the consenting sapindas had no personal motives in giving the consent, spiritual benefit of her husband was in fact one of the considerations for the Widow making the adoption, and the sapindas had not merely an implied but express knowledge that the adoption was being resorted tO by the widow for spiritual considerations. Though one of them was not examined as a witness, his consent letter was proved by a witness in who•e p!resence he signed the letter. [508 A-B; 510 A-BJ ( 3) The consent of the majority o( the nearest sapindas would be su11L cient to satisfy the requirement that a widow should consult the nearest sapindas. Therefore, the consent given by two out of three equally near sapindas, was sufficient to support the adoption. [508 G-HJ ( 4) The consent of a sapinda for adoption by a widow, who has no authority from her husband1 was required under Hindu law, because, a woman is considered incapable of exercising independent judgment in the matt~r. In the present case if the g\"andmother of the deceased husband were to desire to adopt a son, herself would have to obtain the consent of her ·sapindas in the absence of her husband's authority, because of her incapacity to exercise independent judgment: and it would follow that she could hardly be a competent adviser to another widow, namely, her grand· 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970) 2 S .. C.R. son's widow on the same matter. Therefore, even if she happens to be the nearest sapinda there could be no requirenlent that her consent must be obtained for validating the adoption. [511 E-F; G-H; 512 BJ (5) The reference in The Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sethupatty, 11 M.l.A. 397, to kindred or kinsmen, whose consent is to be obtained by a widow for a valid adoption, is to male agnates only. In that case, the opinion of the mother-in-law regarding the adoption by her daughter-in-daw was considered important by the Judicial Committee only because of the. special authority granted to the mother-in-law by her son and not because, in every case, the . consent of a mother-in-law was neces· sary to make an adoption by the daughter-in-law vali!i, or that her consent must be obtained on the ground that she is the nearest Kindred alive. [512 F; 513 B-C; 514 HJ V.T .S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar v. Kulandai Veli \1udalicr [1963] 2 S.C.R. 4'10, followed. Raghanadha v. Brojo Kishoro, [1876J LR. 3 I.A. 154, Veera Bcsava- raju v. Balasurya Prasada Rao, [1918J L.R. 45 I.A. 265 and Glil>nta China Ramasubba,vya v. Moparthi Chenchuram.ayya,·L.R. 74 I.A. 162, .applied. c Varadamma v. Kanchi Scnkara Reddi A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 933, approved. Observations Contra in Rajah Damara Kumara Venkctappa Nayanim D Bahadur Varu v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.