Back
1899 Supreme(SC) 7
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
AT THE HEARING OF THE FIRST APPEAL: LORD HOBHOUSE, LORD MACNAGHTEN, AND SIR RICHARD COUCH. PRESENT AT THE HEARING OF THE SECOND APPEAL: LORD HERSCHELL, LORD WATSON, LORD HOBHOUSE, LORD MACNAGHTEN, AND SIR RICHARD COUCH.
SRI BALUSU GUBULINGASWAMI - Appellant
Versus
SRI BALUSU RAMALAKSHMAMMA - Respondents
On Appeal From The High Court at Madras. And On Appeal From The High Court at Allahabad.
Decided On : February 11,15,16, 1898; June 29, 1898; July 6,13, 1898; March 11, 1899.
Solicitor for appellant in first appeal: R. T. Tasker.
Solicitors for respondents in first appeal: Keen, Rogers & Co.
Solicitors for appellant in second appeal: T. L. Wilson & Co.
Solicitors for respondents in second appeal: Pyke & Parrott.
The adoption of an only son under Hindu law is valid. Prohibitions in ancient texts are interpreted as religious or moral recommendations (vinculum pudoris) rather than legal mandates (vinculum juris), meaning such adoptions are not void in law despite being potentially sinful.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Adoption - Validity of adoption of an only son - Distinction between religious/moral prohibition and legal nullity - The prohibition against giving or receiving an only son in adoption is a religious recommendation and not a positive legal prohibition; such an act, while potentially sinful, does not render the adoption void in law. (Paras 48-50)
(B) Interpretation of Sacred Texts - Precepts supported by the assignment of a reason are to be construed as recommendatory rather than imperative. (Para 48)
(C) Widow's Power to Adopt - Unless there is an express prohibition by the husband, the wife's power to adopt, with the concurrence of the required family members, is co-extensive with that of the husband. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
Two appeals were filed challenging the validity of adoptions on the ground that the adopted children were the only sons of their natural parents. It was contended that such adoptions are forbidden by the applicable personal law and are therefore null and void.
Findings of Court:
The adoption of an only son is valid in law. The prohibition found in ancient texts is monitory and addressed to the moral and spiritual sense of the parties rather than being a legal mandate that would invalidate the transaction.
Issues: Whether the adoption of an only son is null and void under the applicable personal law and whether a widow possesses the authority to effect such an adoption in the absence of express authority from the deceased husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that ancient legal texts often mingle religious, moral, and legal considerations. A distinction must be made between a legal obligation (vinculum juris) and a moral obligation (vinculum pudoris). The prohibition against adopting an only son is based on spiritual concerns and the desire to continue the lineage, which are religious recommendations. Since the practice is widespread, accepted by various communities, and not subject to social penalties, and because the texts are not unambiguously prohibitive, the law should favor the validity of the transaction to avoid disturbing settled titles and family arrangements.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
adoption
- validity of adoption of only son
- widow's power to adopt
-
adoption
-
hindu law
-
practice and procedure
-
interpretation of texts
- sanskrit translation
-
interpretation of texts
Judgement
The first of these appeals was from a decree of the High Court of Madras (Sept. 20, 1894) affirming a decree of the District Court of Godaveri (Sept. 20, 1893) and dismissing a suit of the appellant to set aside an adoption made by the first respondent, the widow of one Butchi Sarvarayudu.
Law. Rep. 26 Ind. App. 113 ( 1898- 1899) Balusu Gubulingaswami V. Balusu Ramalakshmamma
31
On November 10, 1888, the widow adopted the second respondent, Sri Balusu Pattabhiramaya, the only son of a distant relation of the deceased Butchi, who had died when his son was about three months old. It was found by both Courts that he had expressed his wishes in favour of the adoption; and it was not disputed that before the adoption the male members of Butchis family were consulted and consented to it, several of them in writing. The appellant was the brother of the natural father of the adopted Roy, and succeeded to the rights which the Roy relinquished on his adoption.
The prayer of the plaint was to set aside this adoption, " by reason of the first defendant not having been legally authorized to make it, and by reason of the said defendant having been an only son, and as such not being disposable in adoption."
The main issue raised was one of law as to the invalidity of the adoption of an only son. Both Courts decided that the adoption was valid. They rested their judgments upon the course of decisions in Madras, and did not examine the conflicting decisions in Bengal and Bombay.
Mayne, for the appellant, contended that the adoption of an only son is forbidden by HINDU LAW and is invalid. The Hindu authorities in favour of that proposition are, first, the texts of the Rishis Vasishtha, see Max Miillers Sacred Books of the East, ch. xv. ss. 1-5, and Col. Dig. Bk. V. c. iv. s. 8, No. 273; Baudhayana, cited in Dattaka Mimamsa, s. V. vv. 31 and 42; Saunaka, as quoted in Vyavahara Mayukha, c. iv. s. V. v. 9, Stokes HINDU LAW Books, p. 61; and see for all three Rishis citations in Lakshmappa v. Ramava (( 1875) 12 Bomb. H. C. 377.); and in Dattaka Mimamsa, s. 4, v. 1 et seq., Stokes, p. 571. Compare Menu, IX. 142. Second, the Hindu commentators see Dattaka Mimamsa, sect. 4, vv. 1-6, Stokes, p. 571; Dattaka Chandrika, sect. 1, vv. 27-30, Stokes, p. 635; Mitakshara, c. 1,
s. xi. vv. 9-12, Stokes, p. 416; Sarasvati Vilasa, p. 74, ss. 368, 369, and see preface; Viramitrodaya (Sarkar), p. 115, § 8, see preface, p. 14. The Viramitrodaya is held by the Privy Council to be a work of especial authority in Benares on any point left doubtful by the Mitakshara see Collector of Madura
v. Moottoo Ramalinga (( 1868) 12 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 438.) and Gridhari Lall Roy v. The Bengal Govern ment. (( 1868) 12 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 448.) Then come the more modern authorities of English writers see the opinion of Colebrooke, as given in 2 Stranges H. L. 105, 106, 107; Ellis, ibid. pp. 105, 106, 107; Sir T. Strange, 1 Strange, 85, and Stranges Manual, p. 18, No. 98; Sutherlands Synopsis, Stokes, p. 665; 1 W. Macnaghten, 67 ; 2 W. Macn. 178, 179, 182, 192, 195, and Sir F. Macn. 147; Steeles Castes, p. 45, s. 39; p. 183, s. 39; West and Buhler (3rd ed.),
p. 909, 912, 1040; Jagannathas Digest, Book V. c. iv. s. viii. para. 273, note. The doctrine of factum valet does not apply; the adoption being wholly void, there was no factum, and the transaction is a nullity. Reference was made upon the subject of factum valet to Lakshmappa v. Ramava (12 Bomb.
H. C. 397.); Gopal Narhar Safray v. Hanmant Ganesh Safray (( 1879) Ind. L. R. 3 Bomb. 293) ; Ganga Sahai v. Lekhraj Singh (( 1886) Ind. L. R. 9 Allah. 296.); Srimati Uma Devi v. Gokoolanund Mahapatra . (( 1878) L. R. 5 Ind. Ap. 53.)
With regard to the current of decisions in the Madras Presidency, the first was Veerapermall Pillay v. Narrain Pillay ((1801) 1 Strange, N. C. (ed. 1827) 78), where the ruling was in the first place an obiter dictum, and in the second was discredited by Sir T. Strange in 1 Stranges H. L. 102.
