Concurrent findings of fact regarding a family member's status as separate or joint should not be disturbed without manifest error. Additionally, the physical act of "giving and taking" is essential for a valid adoption and may occur during the registration of the adoption deed.

Sir George Rankin:-

This pedigree table has reference to a family of the sub-caste "Lodha" at Ajmer. It is possessed of a trading and banking business carried on under the name of Kanwalnain Hamir Singh. The headquarters of the business are in Ajmer but it is carried on in some 16 different places throughout India under various names and in the case of three of the branch businesses it is said that a stranger to the family has an interest. A considerable amount of immovable property is owned by the family : it is not used in the business but the rents and profits are received by the business and are dealt with as income thereof. The business is said to have been established for over a hundred years. There is some dispute about the correct description of the family : they are said to be Oswal Jains but the appellants are concerned to maintain that though they are Oswals by caste they are not Jains and that they are governed by the Mitakshara. On 26th March 1923, Jeet Mal had died childless leaving a widow - now respondent 1 Sethani Prabhabhati Kunwar. She was about 18 years of age. On 30th June 1924, she entered into a deed of adoption whereby she purported to have adopted as a son to her deceased husband a boy of 11 years named Man Mohan Lal whose father, Bhanwarmal, purported by the same deed to have given him in adoption. On the next day (1st July 1924), the appellants and respondent 4 (or their predecessors), filed in the Court of the District Judge of Ajmer-Merwara the suit out of which this appeal arises. They sued the widow, the boy and Bhanwarmal seeking a declaration that the adoption was invalid and an injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to it : they also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with the affairs, property and business of the family, alleging that the family was joint, that the widow was entitled only to maintenance and residence, and that she was not entitled as heir of her husband to any share in the family business or property.

No steps were taken by the plaintiffs to have a guardian ad litem appointed for the boy but his father and the widow filed similar written statements (30th July) admitting the joint status of the family and defending the adoption as valid. In December they sought to amend by pleading that Jeet Mal had died separate in food, worship and estate, but leave to amend was refused (14th March 1925). On 6th November 1925 the widow again applied to amend her defence alleging that her husband had died separate, and repudiating the adoption as having been due to fraud and misrepresentation practised upon her. The District Judge (31st August 1926) allowed her to amend her defence as to the separate status of her husband but refused to permit her to repudiate the adoption. The boy's father, Bhanwarmal, was not allowed to amend his written statement so as to withdraw his admission of Jeet Mal's joint status. In August 1926, it was discovered that no guardian ad litem had been appointed for the boy and Bhanwarmal was appointed. On 22nd November 1929 the learned Additional District Judge gave judgment in the suit. He held that the factum of adoption had not been established as no giving and taking of the boy had been proved to have taken place on 30th June 1924 : accordingly he declared the adoption to be "null and void and cancelled." He dismissed the claim for an injunction to restrain the widow from interfering with the business, reciting in his decree that it is held that as the widow of a separated Jain governed by Hindu law she has the right as such widow to a half of a third share in the tisira or unpartitioned property and assets of the firm of Kanwalnain Hamir Singh to which her deceased husband Jeet Mal was entitled.

From this decree the widow did not appeal : indeed she had no quarrel with it. But the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (Appeal No. 68 of 1930) : likewise the boy and his father Bhanwarmal (Appeal No. 50 of 1930)