Skip to content


Vaman Vithal Kulkarni Vs. Venkaji Khando Kulkarni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal Nos. 978 and 979 of 1917
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Bom55; (1921)23BOMLR269; 61Ind.Cas.460
AppellantVaman Vithal Kulkarni
RespondentVenkaji Khando Kulkarni
Excerpt:
hindu law-adoption-adoption by widow of pre-deceased nephew with the consent of the widow of last co-parcener-subsequent adoption by the latter widow invalid.;on the death of a hindu leaving his own widow g and a tho widow of his predeceased nephew, a adopted with the consent of g. thereafter g adopted a son. a question having arisen whether the latter adoption was valid :-;that as soon as a made an adoption with the consent of g, the whole estate vested in auch adopted son, and the right of g to adopt to her husband came to an end. - .....year 1862. with the consent of godubai ahilyabai adopted one gopal in 1864. after the adoption of gopal, godubai is said to have adopted one ramchandra in 1867; and after the death of ramohandra she is said to have adopted defendant no. 1 in 1884. the validity of the adoption of gopal by ahilyabai is not questioned before us. but it is argued that after the adoption of gopal by aliilyabai ' godubai's right to adopt did not come to an end, that she in fact adopted defendant no. 1 and that the adoption is valid. it seems to us clear, however, that, when with the consent of godubai, gopal was adopted by ahilyabai, the whole property vested in gopal, and godubai's right to adopt to her husband came to an end. it is not disputed before us, and it cannot be disputed, that if gopal had been.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. The only question in this appeal relates to the share of defendant No. 1, who is said to have lost all rights in his natural family on account of his adoption by Godubai. The facts about that adoption are that one Khando died in 1860 leaving two widows Kashibai and Godubai and a lady named Ahilyabai, the widow of a predeceased nephew. Kashibai died in the year 1862. With the consent of Godubai Ahilyabai adopted one Gopal in 1864. After the adoption of Gopal, Godubai is said to have adopted one Ramchandra in 1867; and after the death of Ramohandra she is said to have adopted defendant No. 1 in 1884. The validity of the adoption of Gopal by Ahilyabai is not questioned before us. But it is argued that after the adoption of Gopal by Aliilyabai ' Godubai's right to adopt did not come to an end, that she in fact adopted defendant No. 1 and that the adoption is valid. It seems to us clear, however, that, when with the consent of Godubai, Gopal was adopted by Ahilyabai, the whole property vested in Gopal, and Godubai's right to adopt to her husband came to an end. It is not disputed before us, and it cannot be disputed, that if Gopal had been the natural son of Ahilyabai, on the death of Khando, Godubai could not have made any adoption without the consent of Gopal; and in our opinion when Godubai consented to the adoption of Gopal by Ahilyabai and when Gopal was in fact adopted by Ahilyabai, her power of adoption was at an end, as it would be if Gopal had been the natural son of Ahilyabai. Thus it is clear that defendant No. 1's adoption by Godubai was not valid. It appears that in Suit No. 20 of 1892 when defendant No. 1 attempted to assert his right as the adopted son of Godubai in the family of Khando, his right was not recognized; and it is not suggested in the present case that since then he has ever attempted to assert his right as the adopted son in that family or that Ins position as such has been accepted or acquiesced in by any person in that family. His position, therefore, in the present litigation is that he continued to be a member of his natural family, and on that footing he is entitled to his share in the property in suit. The contention which was urged before the lower appellate Court that after his adoption by Godubai, he lost all his rights in his natural family, even though the adoption was invalid, has been quite properly abandoned before us.

2. The result is that the decree of the lower appellate Court is affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.

3. This judgment will govern appeal No. 978 of 1917 also.

4. There will be only one set of costs in appeal No. 978.


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