Skip to content


Venkappa Timappa Vs. Fakirgowda Govindgowda - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 472 of 1905
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR346
AppellantVenkappa Timappa
RespondentFakirgowda Govindgowda
Excerpt:
hindu law-adoption.-conditional adoption-conditions made by the adopter with, the natural parent of the adopted boy-conditions not valid and binding on the adopted boy. . . .; an adopted son is not bound by an agreement, made on the occasion of his adoption between his natural parent and adoptive mother, whereby the latter is enabled to give away immovable property that would otherwise have come to him as adopted son. - .....son is bound by an agreement, made on the occasion of his adoption between his natural parent and adoptive mother, whereby the latter is enabled to give away immoveable property that otherwise would have come to him as adopted son.2. under the agreement in this case the adoptive mother has purported to give away 16 acres, out of a total of 27. of the 16 acres 4 were given to the defendant, her brother, and it is to recover these 4 acres alone that this suit has been brought by the adopted son. the first court has decided in the plaintiffs favour, but this decree has been reversed on appeal.3. the general question involved is not free from doubt, but the special circumstances of this case are in the plaintiff's favour. 4. accepting the test suggested by sir charles farran in ravji.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. This appeal raises the question how far an adopted son is bound by an agreement, made on the occasion of his adoption between his natural parent and adoptive mother, whereby the latter is enabled to give away immoveable property that otherwise would have come to him as adopted son.

2. Under the agreement in this case the adoptive mother has purported to give away 16 acres, out of a total of 27. Of the 16 acres 4 were given to the defendant, her brother, and it is to recover these 4 acres alone that this suit has been brought by the adopted son. The first Court has decided in the plaintiffs favour, but this decree has been reversed on appeal.

3. The general question involved is not free from doubt, but the special circumstances of this case are in the plaintiff's favour.

4. Accepting the test suggested by Sir Charles Farran in Ravji Vinayakrau Jaggannath Shankarsett v. Lakshmibai I.L.R. (1887) 11 Bom. 381, the stipulations in the agreement were (in our opinion) unreasonable so far as they purported to vest in the adoptive mother power to make the gift she did in favour of the defendant, and that gift therefore is not binding on the minor plaintiff. The decree, therefore, of the District Court should be reversed and that of the first Court restored with costs throughout.


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