HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. K. Das And G. K. Misra, JJ.
RADHA KRISHNA MOHAPATRA - Appellant
Versus
BHUYAN SRI SHYAM SUNDAR MOHAPATRA - Respondent
Civil Revn. 265 Of 1962
Decided On : DECEMBER 03, 1963
ADOPTION - HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 11(1) - STEP-SONS ARE NOT SONS BY LEGITIMATE BLOOD RELATIONSHIP - ADOPTION OF A SON BY A WIDOW WITH STEP-SONS IS VALID.
Fact of the Case:
Luximani, the first wife of Rai Bahadur Bhuyan Bhaskar Mohapatra, filed a partition suit for the properties left by her husband after his death. During the pendency of the suit, she died. The petitioner, Bishnu Mohan Naik, filed an application to be substituted in her place, claiming to be her adopted son. The trial court rejected the application, and the petitioner filed a civil revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Luximani had the capacity to adopt a son as she was of sound mind and her husband was dead. The court further held that the petitioner was not disqualified from being adopted as Luximani's son since her step-sons were not her sons by legitimate blood relationship. The court also held that the trial court erred in not considering the question of whether the petitioner was adopted by Luximani and in dismissing the suit as having abated.
Issues: 1. Whether Luximani had the capacity to adopt a son. 2. Whether the petitioner was disqualified from being adopted as Luximani's son. 3. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the question of whether the petitioner was adopted by Luximani. 4. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit as having abated.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widow has the capacity to adopt a son if she does not have a Hindu son, son's son, or son's son's son living at the time of adoption. 2. Step-sons are not sons by legitimate blood relationship. Therefore, the petitioner was not disqualified from being adopted as Luximani's son. 3. The trial court erred in not considering the question of whether the petitioner was adopted by Luximani. This was a mandatory requirement under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The trial court erred in dismissing the suit as having abated without determining whether the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the trial court, and remanded the case for a determination of whether the petitioner was adopted by Luximani. The court also directed that if the finding was that the petitioner was the adopted son, the petition for substitution should be allowed.
G. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) LATE Rai Bahadur Bhuyan Bhaskar Mohapatra died on 22-6-1938. Plaintiff luximani was his first wife. Defendants are his sons and step-sons of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 16 of 1959 on 21-3-1959 in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Balasore, for partition of properties left by her husband. She died on 3-10- 1961. The petitioner filed an application on 2-1-1962 for being substituted in her place on the allegation that he was adopted by her on 14-41958 and that on 16-7-1958 she executed a registered deed of adoption (Ex. 1)which was signed by her and his natural father. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this application on 28-7-1962. On 30-8-1962 the defendants filed an application for dismissing the suit as it had already abated. On the very day the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order to the effect :
"defendant files a petition praying tnat the plaintiff died on 3-10-61 and one Bishnu Mohan Naik filed a petition for substitution of his own minor son Radha Mohan Naik (which ?) has been rejected on 28-7-1962. So they pray that orders be passed for dismissing the suit. The suit has abated. "
The Civil Revision is directed against the Order dated 28-7-1962 and no proceedings have been taken against the order dated 30-8-1962.
( 2 ) MR. Mohapatra opposed the Civil Revision on the following grounds -
(i) Luximani was not entitled to adopt a son to herself when the stepsons are alive. (ii) Even if the decision of the trial court that the petitioner is not the legal representative of Luximani is erroneous in law and fact, the High court cannot interfere in revision as the trial Court had not acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its Jurisdiction. (iii) The Order dated 30-8-1962, which conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to all the matters in controversy in the suit, is a decree under Section 2 (2), C. P. C. As no appeal has been filed against the decree, it ha? become final and the interlocutory order dated 28-7-1962 cannot be set aside in revision. Each of the aforesaid contentions requires close examination.
( 3 ) IT is not disputed that Luximani had the capacity to take in adoption. She was of sound mind. Her husband was dead and she had the capacity to take a son under section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act 78 of 1956), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Under Section 11 (1), if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son's son, or son's son's son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption. This condition is mandatory. Luximani had no son or son's son or son's son's son; but she had step-sons, the defendants. The question is whether these step-sons are the sons of Luximani by legitimate blood relationship. There was no blood relationship between Luximani and her step sons. The defendants cannot, therefore, be the sons of Luximani by legitimate blood relationship. Section 11 (i) therefore did not stand in the way of Luximani validly adopting the petitioner. There is no force in the first contention.
( 4 ) FOR a proper appreciation of the second contention, the reason for which, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the petitioner's claim as the legal representative of Luximani may be noted in his own words -
" (i) Since the fact of adoption does not find a place in the plaint, the question is to be viewed with suspicion. (ii) The focus of enquiry In the partition suit will shift to the question of adoption if the petitioner is permitted to be substituted. He came to the ultimate conclusion -- (iii) It is patent that in spite of Ex. 1 the petitioner cannot prosecute the cause of action as originally framed during the lifetime of the deceased plaintiff in the connected partition suit. "
It is to be noted that the learned Subordinate Judge did not at all consider the question whether the peti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.