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

1955 Supreme(Mad) 278

MADRAS HIGH COURT
GOVINDA MENON,RAJAGOPALAN,KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU,RAMASWAMI GOUNDAR,RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
Sivagami Achi
Versus
S. PR. M. A. L. S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Second Appeal No. 621 of 1947 and Civil Misc. Petn. No. 9629 of 1954
Decided On : 21 October, 1955

Advocates Appeared:
P.S. Sarangapani Aiyangar, for Appellant; A.V. Narayanaswami Aiyar and R. Venkattachalam, for Respondents.

Headnote:

Adoption - Widow - Adoption by widower - Deceased wife as adoptive mother - Whether permissible - Hindu law - Dattaka Mimamsa - Dattaka Chandrika.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Somasundaram, claimed to be the adopted son of the second defendant, Chockalingam Chettiar, and sought a declaration that a sum of Rs. 2482-10-3 standing in the name of Kanthimathi, the second defendant's deceased wife, belonged to him as the adopted son. The first defendant, Sivagami, was Kanthimathi's sister and claimed the money as her stridhanam property.

Finding of the Court:

The Full Bench held that the decision in 1933 Mad 550 (AIR V20) (FB) (A), which allowed a widower to adopt a boy and designate his deceased wife as the adoptive mother, was incorrect. The court interpreted the relevant texts of Dattaka Mimamsa and Dattaka Chandrika to mean that the expression "prathigraheethri ya matha" should be understood only in the sense of a participant in the ceremony of adoption, and that it could not be extended to include a deceased wife. The court also held that adoption by a widower could not have retrospective effect, and therefore, the adopted son could not divest the estate of the deceased wife's heirs.

Issues: 1. Whether the decision in 1933 Mad 550 (AIR V20) (FB) (A) was correct. 2. If the answer to the first question was in the affirmative, whether it was open to a widower whose two wives had already died to adopt a boy and nominate or designate the deceased second wife as the adoptive mother. 3. If the answer to the second question was also in the affirmative, whether such an adopted son could divest the heirs of his adoptive mother who had already succeeded to the estate before his adoption took place.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "prathigraheethri ya matha" in Dattaka Mimamsa and Dattaka Chandrika should be understood only in the sense of a participant in the ceremony of adoption, and cannot be extended to include a deceased wife. 2. Adoption by a widower cannot have retrospective effect, and therefore, the adopted son cannot divest the estate of the deceased wife's heirs.

Final Decision: The Full Bench answered all three questions in the negative, holding that the plaintiff could not be the adopted son of Kanthimathi and had no locus standi to file the suit. The second appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.

Judgement

(Order of Reference to the Full Bench by Chandra Reddi and Ramaswami, JJ. dated 20th February 1952.) RAMASWAMI, J. :- This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S. No. 18 of 1946 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 113 of 1944.

2. This second appeal is being heard by a Bench as Raghava Rao, J. was of opinion that an important question of Hindu law of adoption was involved in this case.

3. The facts necessary for comprehending the questions relating to adoption involved in this case are : One Umayal Achi who died some time before January 1928 was the mother of two daughters, viz., Kanthimathi and Sivagami. Kanthimathi who died on 27-8-1935 was got married as the second wife of the second defendant Chockalingam Chettiar. This Chocklingam Chettiars first deceased wife was one Visalakshi. Sivagami was the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff Somasundaram alias Alagappa Chettiar contends that he has been adopted by the second defendant Chokalingam designating his deceased wife Kanthimathi as the adoptive mother in pursuance of the alleged death-bed wishes of that Kanthimathi.

4. We must now go back a little to set out in what circumstances the plaintiff Somasundaram alias Alagappa Chettiar has come forward with the suit. It is found from Exs. P. 4 to P. 7 which are extract of entries from the books of account of the A.T.N. AR. firm at Pyu in Rangoon, that on 2-2-1927 a sum of Rs. 3500 had been credited in the name of Umayal Achi.

On 23-1-1938 the amount to the credit of Umayal was debited as per Ex. P. 5 a, and on the same date, it was credited in the joint names of Kanthimathi and Sivagami. It is common ground that this money amounting to Rs. 3827-8-9 which was Uniayals money and which was entered in the joint names of Sivagami and Kanthimathi alter Umayals death, was withdrawn by the sisters.

We are not now concerned with this money. Subsequently, nearly a year later, on 27-3-1929, we find an entry Ex. P. 6-a in the firms accounts "credit of Kanthimathi and Sivagami, daughters of Devarayan Chetti received by cashing Rs. 4000 hundi drawn on Rangoon by Karaikudi S.N. S. firm". This amount seems to have been left to accumulate with interest, and was kept in the joint names of Kanthimathi and Sivagami for nearly two years until 30-9-1931.

On 30-9-1931 we find entries Exs. P. 7-f and p. 7-g, when the amount as it stood together with interest was divided into two and Kanthimathi cud Sivagami were each separately credited with Rs. 2482-10-3, their respective moieties. Sivagami seems to have withdrawn her monies subsequently, though no entry in the accounts to that effect is filed. Kanthimathi did not withdraw her share and died on 27-8-1935.

The dispute is now about the sum of Rs. 2482-10-3 which was credited in Kanthimathis separate name on 30-9-1931, as per entry Ex. P. 7-f.

4a. The case for this Somasundara is that he is entitled to this sum of Rs. 2482-10-3 standing to the credit of Kanthimathi in the books of account of A.T.N. AR. firm at Pyu after the death of Kanthimathi on 27-8-1935. The first defendant Sivagami applied for a succession certificate to be granted to her in respect of this money and these succession certificate proceedings which had a chequered career do not concern us here and finally she got a succession, certificate on 25-1-1944.

This Sivagami obtained the certificate of succession on the ground that this sum of money along with other sums of money belonged to Umayal Achi, the mother of Kanthimathi and Sivagami, as stridhanam property, that Umayals daughters took a limited interest in the money and that on the death of Kanthimathi this Sivagami became entitled to Kanthimathis share by survivorship.

Thereupon the plaintiff Somasundara filed this suit for the relief of declaration that this sum with Interest belongs to him as the adopted son of Kanthimathi and for vacating the














































































































































































































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