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

1926 Supreme(Mad) 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Phillips
Sundaramma
Versus
Venkatasubbier And Ors.
Decided On : 12 March, 1926

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased wife of the adoptive father can be considered as the adoptive mother, and the adopted son becomes her heir.

Headnote:

Adopted Son - Inheritance Rights - Dattaka Mimamsa, Section 1, verse 22, Section 6, verse 50 - The court discussed the principles governing adoption under Hindu Law, emphasizing the complete severance of the child adopted from the family in which he is born and his complete substitution into the adoptive family. The court interpreted the texts in Dattaka Mimamsa and debated the meaning of 'prathigrahiyamatha' (adoptive mother) to determine the inheritance rights of an adopted son to the relations of the deceased wife of the adoptive father.

Fact of the Case:

The court deliberated on whether an adopted son becomes the legal heir of the deceased wife of the adoptive father.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased wife of the adoptive father can be considered as the adoptive mother, and the adopted son becomes her heir.

Issues: The main issue was whether an adopted son can inherit to the relations of the deceased wife of the adoptive father.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of adoption under Hindu Law, the interpretation of the texts in Dattaka Mimamsa, and the concept of the adoptive mother to determine the inheritance rights of the adopted son.

Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs throughout.

JUDGMENT

Phillips, J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether the adopted son of a man whose only wife had died before the adoption becomes the son of that wife so as to be her legal heir. This question does not seem to have been directly decided in any case and therefore it will be necessary to see how far the authorities support the proposition. In the first place it is necessary to consider the principles which govern adoption under the Hindu Law. In Uma Sunker Moitro v. Kali Komul Mozumdar (1880) I.L.R. 6 C 256 (F B) Romesh Chander Mitter, J. observes:

The theory of adoption depends upon the principle of a complete severance of the child adopted from the family in which he is born, both in respect to the paternal and maternal line, and his complete substitution into the adopters family, as if he were born in it,

2. This theory has been upheld by the Privy Council in Nagindas Bhugwandas v. Bachoo Hurkissondas (1915) I.L.R. 40 B 270 at 288 : 30 M L J 193 (P C). The theory then appears to be that the adopted boy by a legal fiction becomes the natural son of the adoptive father and presumably also of his wife. The question here is not complicated by the existence of two or more wives. In Narasimha Appa Rao v. Parthasarathy (1913) I.L.R. 37 M 199 at 220 : 26 M L J 411 (P C) their Lordships of the Judicial Committee observe : "Only one wife can receive the child in adoption so as to step into the position of being its adoptive mother" and again "to hold that a child could bear such a relationship to more than one mother would be entirely contrary to settled law." This conclusion appears to be based on the theory of adoption, namely, that the adopted son becomes the natural son of the father, and the only way in which he can be deemed to be the natural and legitimate son of his father is by a fiction that he is the son of that fathers wife also. A Hindu son has to offer oblations not only to his fathers ancestors but also to his mothers ancestors. When, therefore, he is adopted into a new family, he becomes the son of that family and presumably he would offer oblations not only to his adoptive fathers ancestors but to his fathers wifes ancestors as well. It would be straining the legal fiction of adoption too far to hold that the boy need have no mother at all, although this may possibly be necessary in the case of an adoption by a bachelor, but that is an exceptional case with which we are not concerned now. In a family in which there were two wives, it was held that the wife who joined with the father in making the adoption although the junior wife was the mother of the boy in preference to her senior co-wife. Annapurni Nachiar v. Collector of Tinnevelly (1895) I.L.R. 18 M 277 : 5 M L J 121. This was upheld by the Privy Council in Annapurni Nachiar v.Forbes (5). Wherever possible therefore a mother should be found for the boy and the fact that such a mother died before the adoption can be no obstacle in view of the fictitious character of the whole principle of adoption.

3. It is contended for the respondent that even when the adoptive fathers wife is alive she does not become the adoptive mother unless she actively participates in the adoption by receiving the adopted boy. This contention is apparently based on the literal meaning of the word "prathigrahitha " which is ordinarily translated as adoptive. Its literal meaning is " receiving " and it is contended that unless the boy is actually received by the woman she does not become his adoptive mother. It is well settled that a man can adopt without the consent of his wife and even against her consent and in either case the adoption is valid. If the adoption is valid and the principle is recognised that the adopted boy ought in theory to have a mother, it is difficult to accept the proposition that he is not to have any mother at all unless she actually receives him in adoption. The argument that the wife becomes the adoptive mother is based on the text of Nanda Panditha in Datta
















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