SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Bom) 76

Bombay High Court
DESHMUKH,CHANDURKAR,SAWANT
Shriram Manik Patil - Appellant
Versus
Sojabai Manik Patil - Respondent
Decided On : 03/23/1979

Advocates:
Vikramsinha T. Choudhari, for Appellant; B.B. Mali and M.R. Kotwal, for Respondent No. 4.

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 lays down specific conditions for a valid adoption among Hindus, and any adoption made in contravention of these provisions shall be void unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

Headnote:

Custom - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The court held that the word 'custom' or 'usage' in Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not include the rules of Bombay School of Hindu Law or the interpretation of the text thereof by Courts. The court emphasized that the Act lays down specific conditions for a valid adoption among Hindus, and any adoption made in contravention of these provisions shall be void unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-defendant claimed that there was a custom of adopting boys who have completed the age of fifteen years among the community of the party in the village. However, the appellant-defendant had not pleaded this custom in the written statement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's adoption, even if the facts were held true, was void as a person who has completed fifteen years of age could not be adopted as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court emphasized that the absence of a proper pleading regarding the custom meant that the question of the custom did not arise in the litigation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the word 'custom' or 'usage' in Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 includes the rules of Bombay School of Hindu Law or the interpretation of the text thereof by Courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act lays down specific conditions for a valid adoption among Hindus, and any adoption made in contravention of these provisions shall be void unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

Final Decision: The appeal was directed to go back to the learned Single Judge for further disposal according to law, and the costs of the reference were to be costs in the appeal.

Judgement

DESHMUKH, C.J. :- The point that is referred to the Full Bench is as follows:-

"Whether the word 'custom' or 'usage' in Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, includes within its sweep the rules of Bombay School of Hindu Law or the interpretation of the text thereof by Courts ?"

When the Reference was opened before us by Mr. Choudhari for the appellant-original defendant, he wanted to argue that there was a custom of adopting boys who have completed the age of fifteen years among the community of the party, in that village. It is because of this point, which he raised in this second appeal before the learned Single Judge that the matter was referred to the Division Bench, and by the Division Bench to this larger Bench.

2. We, however, find, on examining the pleadings by the parties, that the appellant-defendant has nowhere pleaded in the written statement that there is a custom in the area to which he belongs or in the community to which he belongs or the family from which he hails. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, lays down certain conditions for a valid adoption amongst the Hindus. Section 4 of that Section lays down that :-

"Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act -

(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act."

xxx xxx xxx xxx

Section 5 of that Act lays down :-

"(1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void."

xxx xxx xxx xxx

Section 10(iv) deals with the persons who could be adopted. It lays down in Clause (iv) thereof that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless one of the conditions to be satisfied is that he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

3. In the face of this positive statement in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the adoption of the appellant, even if the facts were to be held true, was void, as a person who has completed fifteen years of age could not be adopted as per these provisions. If it could be proved or if it could be shown that there is a custom to the contrary, and a boy or a girl who has completed the age of fifteen years could be adopted by way of custom of the community or the party etc., then the party could claim to be validly adopted.

4. However, we find that such a pleading is not there at all in the written statement, nor any attempt was made when the First Appeal was disposed of in the District Court for amendment of the pleadings. For the first time in the second appeal Court such a question which requires a proper pleading could not be permitted to be agitated or raised by the party.

5. This was the only point on which this Reference has been made to this larger Bench. Our answer, therefore, to the point raised is that this question does not arise in this litigation.

6. The appeal will go back to the learned Single Judge for further disposal according to law. Costs of this Reference will be costs in the appeal.

Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top