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

2008 Supreme(Cal) 682

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND PRASENJIT MANDAL, JJ.
Soumen Kumar Kar and Ors.
versus
Swapan Kumar Kar and Ors.
F. A. No. 67 of 1997
Decided on : 14 -7 -2008

Advocates appeared:
P. K. Das, Bipul Mondal, for Appellant; D. P. Adhikary, Debasish Mitra, for Respondents.

A woman cannot adopt without the consent of her husband, and an adoption without such consent is invalid.

Headnote:

ADOPTION - VALIDITY - HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1955 - SEC. 8 - ADOPTION BY WOMAN - CONSENT OF HUSBAND - ESSENTIAL - ADOPTION WITHOUT CONSENT - INVALID.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, claiming to be co-owners of certain properties, filed a suit for partition against the defendants, who claimed exclusive ownership of one of the properties, alleging that it was the self-acquired property of their deceased aunt, Protiva, who had validly adopted the first defendant, Swapan. The plaintiffs contended that the adoption was invalid as it was not made with the consent of Protiva's husband, as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the adoption of Swapan by Protiva was invalid as it was not made with the consent of her husband, as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955. The court also held that the plaintiffs, as heirs of Protiva's husband, were entitled to inherit the property in question, as Protiva did not have any other heirs at the time of her death.

Issues: 1. Whether the adoption of Swapan by Protiva was valid. 2. Whether the plaintiffs, as heirs of Protiva's husband, were entitled to inherit the property in question.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 requires that a woman cannot adopt without the consent of her husband. 2. The adoption of Swapan by Protiva was not made with the consent of her husband, as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955, and was therefore invalid. 3. As Protiva did not have any other heirs at the time of her death, the plaintiffs, as heirs of her husband, were entitled to inherit the property in question.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the trial court were affirmed.

Judgement

K. J. SENGUPTA, J. :- The above appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in Title Suit No. 173 of 1988 refusing to pass preliminary decree in respect of one of the four suit properties namely premises No. D-642 Lake Gardens, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said suit properties). The appellants/plaintiffs brought the said suit in the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore against as many as 12 persons. Besides the suit property premises No. 162/8/1 Lake Garden, Kolkata now renumbered as D-620 Lake Gardens Kolkata, and 135 shares in the joint stock company known as R. Cambray and Company Private Limited and 150 shares in the joint stock company having its registered office at premises No. P-33 Mission Row Extension in the town of Calcutta are also subject-matter of the suit. Sum and substance of the case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs and the defendants are male and female descendants of one Narendra Chandra Kar, since deceased, who died on 15th of February 1962 intestate leaving him surviving three sons viz. Sisir, Sasadhar and Sunil and one daughter Protiva Bose and sole widow, all since deceased. The plaintiffs are the sons and daughter of late Sasadhar, while the defendants are sons and daughter of late Sisir and late Sunil. The plaintiffs' case was that all the suit properties belonged to late Narendra though ostensibly in the name of other persons. Their father inherited undivided 1/3rd share of the suit properties in view of death of his mother and sister Protiva. Hence the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to undivided 1/3rd share in the suit properties. All the suit properties did not stand in the name of Narendra. The immovable properties being item Nos. 1 and 2 were in the name of Protiva daughter of Narendra and Subasini being grandmother of the parties and wife of Narendra, since deceased respectively. As such, the plaintiffs in the plaint stated that those two immovable properties were really owned by one Narendra but the same were owned by Subasini and Protiva as benamidars. It was claimed that neither Subasini nor Protiva did anything to acquire such property. Protiva being the daughter could not acquire the said property as her husband was not well placed in his working life and he was merely an employee of the Reserve Bank of India and had a small monthly income as such he could not probably supply money to Protiva to acquire the said item No. 1 of the suit property. Therefore, the said property was a joint family property. In the plaint it was further claimed that alleged story of adoption by Protiva, of Swapan is illegal, invalid and the same was never acted upon, so Swapan cannot claim ownership of the said item No. 1 property to the exclusion of any other person.

In the plaint the following reliefs were claimed :

(a) Preliminary partition decree of the suit properties;

(b) Final partition decree;

(c) Declaration that the defendant No. 1 has not been the adopted son of Smt. Protiva Bose, since deceased.

2. None except the first defendant, Swapan contested the suit filing written statement of the defendants. All the defendants contested the said suit and said that the plaintiffs cannot have any share except in the premises No. D-620 Lake Gardens which stood in the name of the wife of Narendra. It was said that the first defendant, Swapan Kumar Kar was adopted by Protiva and this has been decided in another suit being Title Suit No. 11 of 1950 by judgment and decree. It is pertinent to mention that in both the written statements plea of maintainability of the suits as well as question of limitation was taken. The learned Trial Judge framed the following issues :

1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

2) Is there any cause of action to sue?

3) Is the suit bad for defect of parties?

4) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get decree as prayed for?

5) To what other relief or reliefs are t

































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