Skip to content


Narayan Laxman Chandvadkar Vs. Gopalrao Trimbak Chandavadkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 374 of 1921
Judge
Reported in(1922)24BOMLR414; 67Ind.Cas.850
AppellantNarayan Laxman Chandvadkar
RespondentGopalrao Trimbak Chandavadkar
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
annuity-grant of annuity in consideration of adoption-hindu law-grant invalid-question whether a grant of annuity by father binds son.;a grant of annuity as consideration for an agreement to give a boy in adoption is not valid in law.;quare-whether the grant of annuity by a hindu father can be enforced against the sons.;the decisions in balkrishna v. janardana (1904) 6 bom. l.r. 642 and babubhai v. beharilal (1905) 7 bom. l.r. 686 appear to be in conflict and may require to be considered hereafter. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale,.....norman macleod, c.j.1. both the courts have found in this case that the promise to pay the annuity was the consideration for the agreement to give the boy in adoption. that would be sufficient to invalidate the agreement; and we need not consider the question whether the payment of the annuity, if there had been good consideration for it, could be enforced against the heirs of ganpatrao, although we may point out that the two decisions in balkrishna v. janardana (1904) 6 bom. 642 and babubhai v. beharilal (1905) 7 bom. l.r. 686 appear to be in conflict, and may require to be considered hereafter. the appeal, therefore, will be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. Both the Courts have found in this case that the promise to pay the annuity was the consideration for the agreement to give the boy in adoption. That would be sufficient to invalidate the agreement; and we need not consider the question whether the payment of the annuity, if there had been good consideration for it, could be enforced against the heirs of Ganpatrao, although we may point out that the two decisions in Balkrishna v. Janardana (1904) 6 Bom. 642 and Babubhai v. Beharilal (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 686 appear to be in conflict, and may require to be considered hereafter. The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //