LexV. T. S. CHANDARASEKHARA MUDALIAR (DIED) AND OTHERS. versus KULANDAIVELU MUDALIAR AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, ' 4Ao ;SUPREME COuRT REPORTS [1963) V. T. S. CHANDARASEKHARA 1\IUDALIAR · , (DIED) .AND OTHERS. v. KULANDAIVELU MUDALIAR AND OTHERS. (A.K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAo and J.R. - . MUDHOLKAR, 'JJ.) . Hindu LaW:-Adoption-Nearer Sapindas...:..Refusal of consent-When improper. ' The appellants, the nearer sapindas of the husband of the 2nd respondent who had adopted the !st respondent, the son of her agent, filed a ·suit for a declaration that the adoption was invalid on. the ground that they had pro- perly refus~ their consent an~ that _the remote sapii;da who had given hu consent was dJSquahfied from . so domg as he , did not believe in the Hindu scriptures. The appellants who had been asked for their consent had refused it on the ground that the 1st respondent was not an agnate and that among their grand children or children there were eligible boys wbom their parents were willing to give in adoption.. The ttial court at Madurai as well as tlie High Court of Madras dis- missed the suit, holding that the nearer sapindas had impro- perly refused their consent and that in the circumstances the adoption with ~he content of the remote sapinda was_ valid. On appeal by a certificate under Art. 133 (l)(c). r • . Held, tbat the power of Hindu widow to adopt is co- extensive with that of her husband and when her discretion is not limited by her husband it is absolute and is only subject to the assent of the sapindas. Ba/usu Gurulingasu·ami _v. Balusu Ramala"8hmamma (1899) I.L.R. 22 Mad.398, referred to; f The validity of an adoption has to be judged by spiritual rather than temporal considerations and that devolution of property is only of secondary importance. - The Oollector of Madras v. Afootoo Ramalinga Sethupathy. ( 1868), 12 M.I.A. 397, Sri Raghunadha v. Bhri Brozo Kialwre . . (1876) K.R. 3. I.A. 154,Raja Vellanki Venkata Krishna Row v. Venkata Rama Lakshmi Narasrvyya, (1876) L.R. 4, I.A J; Veera Basavaraju v. Balasurya Prasada Rao, (1918), L.R. 4, I.A. 265, Amarendra Mansingh v. Banalan Singli, (1933) L.R. 60, I.A. 242 and Ghanta Ohina Ramasubbayya v. Moopar-. thi OhanChuramawa, (1947) L,R, 74, I.A. 162, referred to, - ·· j 2 s.o.R. SUPREME OOtJR'l' tmPOR'l'S 441 Held, further, that consent of .sapindas was an assurance of the b<mafide performance Of a religious dut) and the guarantee against capricious action by a widow in taking, a ·boy in adoption and not the possible deprivation of proprietory interests of the reversioners. Sri Kriahnayya Rao v. Surya Rao Bahailur Garu; ( 1935) 69 M.L.J. 388, referred to. . The sapindas who are in a fiduciary relation to the widow should exercise their power objectively and without being actuated by their own self interest and that the rules regarding taking only a sapinda In adoption were only recommendatory and the fact that the widow wishes to adopt a non°sapinda is no proper ground for Withholding consent by a sapindas. Sundara Rama Rao v. Satynaraganamurn I.L.R 1950 Mad. 461, Venkamnia v. Subramaniam, (1906) L.R. 34 I.A. 22, Srimati Uma Devi v. Gohxitanund Das M1ihabata, (1876} L.R. 5 I.A. 40, Alluri Venkata Nararimbaraju, v. Alluri Bangarraju v. C. A. No. 226 of 1944 dated 25-7·46 by the Madras High Court and Venkatayudu v. Seahamma A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 745, referred to. ObServations of Bhashyam Ayyangar, J. in Subra- hamanyam v. Venkamma -(1903) I.L.R. 25 Mad, 127 held to be obiter and not approved. The refusal of consent by the appellants was imP,roper. Order XVI r. 4 and Or. XVIII r .. 3 (2) of the Supreme Court do not by themselves enable the High Court to limit the certificate under Art. 133 Of the Constitution to certain grounds and upon this grant of such a certificate the whole appeal was before this Court and all questions urged before the High Court were open. The consent given by the remote sapinda on .a proper appreciation of the relevant facts and despite has non-belief in rituals, he still being a Hindu, was valid. OmL APPlllLLATH JUBISDIOTION : Oivil App~ No. 289 of 1959. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 16, 1955, of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 231 of 1954. · N. 0. OhafJerjee, K.N • .Baja,gqpala Saski, V .8. Ven7eat.a Raman and 'l' •. K. 8-IMa- Raman, for the Appellants Nos. 2 to 6 . .A. ·V. V~ 8aatri, B. <laoo,patlifl l1J6" 1961 Y. T.S. Chonda ....... Aara Modoliar • v. Kulandiff</1 MvdGllar JHI Y. T.S. Chn•..al>aro Jledaliar •. KuHllda-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.