Back
1928 Supreme(SC) 7
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT SUMNER, LORD ATKINSON, LORD SINHA, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
RAGHURAJ CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
SUBHADRA KUNWAR (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On Appeal from the Chief Court of Oudh.
Decided On : February 2, 1928.
Solicitors for appellants : T. L. Wilson & Co.
Solicitors for first respondent: Barrow, Rogers & Nevill.
Under the Oudh Estates Act, the term "brother" is interpreted according to the personal law of the parties. In Hindu law, adoption creates a complete severance from the natural family, meaning a blood brother is not a "brother" for the purposes of succession.
Headnote:(A) Oudh Estates Act, 1869 - Section 22, Clause 5 and Section 29 - U.P. Act III of 1910 - Section 14 - Succession to taluqdari estate - Interpretation of the term "brother" - Whether a natural blood brother of an adopted Hindu is a "brother" within the meaning of the Act - Terms of relationship in inheritance laws must be construed according to the personal law of the parties unless expressly excluded - Under Hindu law, adoption constitutes a "new birth" and results in complete severance from the natural family and substitution into the adoptive family - Such severance extends to the right of succession to property - The blood relationship, while persisting for purposes of prohibited degrees of marriage, does not maintain the status of "brother" for the purposes of inheritance. (Paras 15-25)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - When an Act applies to persons of different religions and tribes, words expressing relationship should be adapted to the circumstances of the different classes and their respective personal laws, except where an express deviation is made. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
A taluqdar died intestate and without sons, leaving behind a widow. The deceased had been adopted into the family of the preceding taluqdar. The claimants, being the natural blood brothers of the deceased, sought succession to the estate, contending that the term "brother" in the governing succession act includes blood brothers, regardless of adoption.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the term "brother" must be interpreted in light of the personal law of the deceased. Under Hindu law, adoption effects a complete transference from the natural family to the adoptive family, severing the legal tie of brotherhood for the purposes of succession.
Issues: Whether the term "brother" in the succession act includes a natural blood brother of a person who was adopted, and whether the personal law of the parties should inform the interpretation of relationship terms in the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adoption in Hindu law is a "new birth" that involves complete severance from the birth family. Since the Act is intended to be adapted to the personal laws of the various communities it governs, the term "brother" must be understood as a brother within the legal family. Allowing a blood brother to inherit would contradict the fundamental legal and ritual theory of adoption in Hindu law.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
succession law
-
taluqdari estates
- oudh estates act
-
taluqdari estates
-
family law
-
hindu law
- adoption
-
hindu law
-
statutory interpretation
- construction of relationship terms
Judgement
Appeal (No. 48 of 1927) from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh (March 22, 1926) affirming a decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction.
The appellants instituted a suit claiming to succeed to an Oudh taluqdari estate, in lists 1, 3 and 5 under Act I. of 1869, upon the death of the taluqdar in 1923 intestate and without sons. The deceased taluqdar was survived by a widow, the first defendant-respondent, who was in possession. The parties were Hindus governed by the Mitakshara. The deceased taluqdar had been adopted, according to Hindu law, by the preceding taluqdar, and had succeeded to the taluqa as an adopted son.
The appellants suit was based upon the contention that a natural brother of an adopted Hindu is a " brother" within the meaning of cl. 5 of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, s. 22, as enacted by s. 14 of U. P. Act III. of 1910, and was consequently entitled to the estate in preference to the widow.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The trial judge (Ashworth J.) rejected the above contention, and dismissed the suit. An appeal was dismissed by Stuart C.J. and Wazir Hasan J. The appeal is reported at I. L. R. 1 Luck. 233.
1927. Nov. 17, 18, 21. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Dube for the appellants. The present question arose in Sheo Singh v. Raghubans Kunwar (( 1905) L.R. 321. A. 243.), but was not decided. The word “brother " in cl. 5 should be given its natural meaning. The section was designed to apply to Hindus, Mahomedans, Sikhs and Christians, and should be so construed Pertab Narain Singh v. Subhao Kooer . (( 1877) L.R.41.A.228,234.) A meaning should be given to " brother" which is applicable in each case. The intention was that, for purposes of succession, the personal law should be displaced by the provisions of the section. The section contains striking divergencies from Hindu law. For instance, under the amended provisions, the adopted son of a Hindu does not take as a " son " but as an " adopted son." In any case the word " brother " connotes a blood relationship. Though in Hindu law an adoption excludes from inheritance in the natural family, it does not obliterate the tie of blood Dattaka Mimansa, sect. 6, para. 10 ; Maynes Hindu Law, 7th ed., para. 164.
[Reference was made also to Abul Kasim Khan v. Hari Singh . (( 1870) Oudh Select Rulings ( 1859- 1893), No. 171.)]
De Gruyther K.C., Hyam and Motilal Nehru for the first respondent. In construing the section account must be taken of personal law save where it is excluded, expressly or by implication. Many of the relationships which are mentioned in the section depend necessarily upon the personal law of the parties. In the case of " brothers" there is nothing to exclude the Hindu law of adoption. That law is recognized in cl. 29. If a natural brother of a Hindu is a " brother " within cl. 5, he would take in preference to a son adopted by the widow, since the latter comes in only by cl. 7. That cannot have been the intention of the Act. Under Hindu law adoption does not create merely a disability from inheriting in the natural family, it effects a complete transference into the family of adoption, subject to the tie of blood being left so far as it prevents marriage Nagindas Bhugwandas v. Bachoo Hurkissondass (L. R. 431. A. 56.); Dattatraya Sakharan v. Govind Sambhaji (I. L. R. 40 B. 429,435.); Pratapsingh Shivsingh v. Agarsingji Raisingji (( 1918)L.R.46I.A.97.); Maynes Hindu Law, 9th, ed., para. 172. There is nothing in the Act which excludes ceremonial adoption among Hindus; though it affects the mode of proof of an adoption for the purposes of the Act.
Sir George Lowndes K.C. in reply. Much of para. 172 of the 9th edition of Mayne, including the passage beginning " Indeed, the fiction goes the length . . . .” has been added since the last edition by Mayne, and is not authoritative.
1928. Feb. 2. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT SUMNER. This appeal relates to the rules of succession lai
