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

1897 Supreme(Cal) 91

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Jenkins, J.
Amrito Lall Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Surnomoye Dassee - Respondent
Decided On : 09-03-1897

Headnote:

Adoption - Hindu Law - Indian Succession Act, 1865, Section 104 - Hindu Wills Act, 1870, Section 2 - - The court examined the validity of a power of adoption granted by a Hindu testator to his widow and executors, the legality of the adoption, and the validity of a direction to accumulate surplus income. The court held that the power of adoption was valid, that it was validly exercised, and that the direction to accumulate was not contrary to Hindu law.

Fact of the Case:

A Hindu testator died leaving a widow and two daughters. He appointed his wife, father, and uncle as executors and trustees. The testator authorized his wife and executors to adopt a son after his death. The widow adopted a son with the consent of the surviving executor. The testator directed his executors to accumulate the surplus income of his estate during the widow's lifetime and to hand it over to the adopted son after her death.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power of adoption was valid, that it was validly exercised, and that the direction to accumulate was not contrary to Hindu law. The court found that the power of adoption was not vitiated by the association of the executors with the widow, as the testator intended them to ensure a wise exercise of her discretion in selecting a son for adoption. The court also found that the power of adoption survived to the surviving executor, as it was connected with the office of executor. The court further found that the direction to accumulate was not contrary to Hindu law, as it was not an attempt to create a perpetuity and was in accordance with the modes of Hindu life and thought.

Issues: The issues raised in the case were: 1. Whether the power of adoption was valid at all in law? 2. If so, was it validly exercised? 3. If so, is the plaintiff, as the adopted son of the testator, entitled to the surplus income of the property until the death of his adoptive mother? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to the absolute interest in the property subject only to the payments mentioned in the will?

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the following principles: 1. A husband can delegate to his widow a power to adopt, but he cannot delegate it to anyone else. 2. Any condition or clog can be imposed upon the exercise by the widow of this delegated power. 3. Where a power is vested in executors, if on the true construction of the will it appears that the power was coupled with the executorial office, it will survive to the holders for the time being of the office. 4. A direction to accumulate is not contrary to Hindu law, as long as it is not an attempt to create a perpetuity and is in accordance with the modes of Hindu life and thought.

Final Decision: The court declared that the plaintiff had been validly adopted, but that he was not entitled during the life of the widow to have the property left by the testator handed over to him, or to receive the rest and residue of the income and interest of the testator's estate. The court directed accounts of the estate and debts of the testator, but provided that no proceedings were to be taken under this direction without the leave of the Judge in Chambers.

JUDGMENT

Jenkins, J. - As this action was originally framed, it was alleged that various breaches of trust had been committed and consequent relief was claimed. When, however, the matter first came before me as a result of discussion that then took place, the charges of misconduct were withdrawn, and the claim resolved itself into one for construction of the will and administration.

2. The testator, whose will gives rise to these proceedings, is one Hari Das Dutt, a wealthy Hindu, of the Sudra caste, and a resident of Calcutta, who died in October 1875, leaving a sole widow, the defendant, Sreemutty Surnomoyo Dassee, and two married daughters, the defendants, Sreemutty Premmoye Dassee and Sreemutty Banee Money Dassee. The first named of these daughters at the time of her father's death had three sons, the defendants. Radha Prosad Mullick and Kasi Prosad Mullick, and one since deceased; s(sic) also has had two sons born after her father's death, the defendants, Pea(sic) Lal Mullick and Behari Lall Mullick. The other daughter, I am told, has (sic) no children.

2. On the 30th of October 1875, the day of his death, Hari Das Dutt execute his last will, and its contents are set out at length in the second paragraph c the claim. By it he appointed his wife, his father, Babu Madhu Suda(sic) Dutt, and his uncle, Dwarka Nath Dutt, to be his executrix and executors, and of these the testator's wife and uncle alone proved the will. The father apparently never performed any executorial duties or intermeddled in the management of the estate, but at the same time he never expressly renounced probate. On the 9th of August the widow, with the consent of Dwarka Nath Dutt, purported to take a boy of five, named Jatipersaud Mullick, in adoption as the son of the testator in pursuance of a power in the will, to which it will be necessary later to refer at length, but this adopted son died on the 29th of January 1881 when he was only ten years old.

3. On the 1st of April 1877 the testator's father died, and on the 9th of February 1881 the plaintiff's natural father purported to give and the testator' widow purported to take the plaintiff, then a boy of eight, in adoption as the son of the testator, the executor, Dwarka Nath Dutt, being present on the occasion and consenting. This adoption, like the former, was intended (sic) in execution of the power contained in the testator's will, and it is adr(sic) that prior to this action the legality of the adoption had never been cal question: on the contrary the plaintiff has throughout been brough(sic) and treated as the duly adopted son of the testator. It will here be conv(sic) to refer to those portions of the will which are especially relevant to the points raised in this case. In Clause 2 the testator says:

I appoint my wife, Sreemutty Surnomoye Dassee, the executrix, and my father, Babu Madhu Sudan Dutt, of Mullick's street, aforesaid, and my uncle Babu Dwarkanath Dutt of Thuntonneah in Calcutta, aforesaid, the executors and trustees of this my will.

4. Clause 8 provides as follows:

Whereas having no son born to me of my body I am desirous of adopting one in my lifetime, but in case I depart this life before carrying such my desire into effect I hereby authorise and empower my wife and executrix, Sreemutty Surnomoye Dassee, and my executors and trustees to whom I give full permission and liberty to adopt after my decease a son, and in case of his death during his minority or on attaining his full age and without leaving male issue to adopt a second son, and in case of his death during minority or on attaining such age and without leaving male issue to adopt a third son and no more. In any of the above cases of adoption should the adopted son die leaving a son or sons, the power of adoption shall cease or remain in abeyance during the life or livestime of such son or sons of such adopted son, but shall revive on the death of such son or sons during minority.

5. Clause 9 is as follows:

I direct my executors

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top