Skip to content


Parvatibai Trimbakrao Patvardhan Vs. Vishvanath Khanderao Raste - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Family
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number First Appeal No. 150 of 1924
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Bom90; (1925)27BOMLR1509; 92Ind.Cas.4
AppellantParvatibai Trimbakrao Patvardhan
RespondentVishvanath Khanderao Raste
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
hindu law - adoption-agreement with natural father of adopted boy- adoptive father reserving full rights over his property-agreement not binding on adopted son.;under hindu law, an agreement made by the adoptive fattier with the natural father of the minor adopted boy at the time of the adoption, reserving full powers to the adoptive father to deal with the family property as be likes by will, is not binding on the adopted son. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always..........and ex. 82, the tharavpatra, was executed at the time as constituting an agreement between the natural father of the defendant, who was then a minor, and the adoptive father. one clause of the agreement was to this effect that the adoptive father had made a will; that the adopted boy should act up to the terms of the will, and in case the adoptive father made other wills, the adopted eon should behave according to the terms of the other wills. that clause in effect gave the adoptive father an absolute right to dispose of all his property even after the adoption in any way he pleased. the will under which the plaintiff claimed was made after the adoption. at that time the joint family consisted of the adoptive father and the adopted son, and according to hindu law the father would.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 6580 with costs of the suit and future interest at six per cent from the estate of the deceased testator Rao Badadur Khanderao Vishwanath Raste in the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed this amount as the arrears of annuity of Rs. 400 a year payable to her under the will of her deceased father.

2. The claim has been dismissed by the lower Court on various grounds, and we think that this appeal can be disposed of in a very simple manner.

3. The defendant was adopted in 1896, and Ex. 82, the tharavpatra, was executed at the time as constituting an agreement between the natural father of the defendant, who was then a minor, and the adoptive father. One clause of the agreement was to this effect that the adoptive father had made a will; that the adopted boy should act up to the terms of the will, and in case the adoptive father made other wills, the adopted eon should behave according to the terms of the other wills. That clause in effect gave the adoptive father an absolute right to dispose of all his property even after the adoption in any way he pleased. The will under which the plaintiff claimed was made after the adoption. At that time the joint family consisted of the adoptive father and the adopted son, and according to Hindu law the father would have no power to, make dispositions by will of the joint family property.

4. We do not think an agreement of this nature is in consonance with the principles of Hindu Jaw with regard to agreements which can be made at the time of the adoption between the adoptive father and the natural father of the boy taken in adoption. The result of such an agreement would be that the adopted son would lose his right in his natural family, and would either acquire no rights at all, or would only acquire rights which were liable to be defeated, in his new family. The appellant being aware of the difficulty of the tharavpatra endeavoured to rely upon the payments made to her by the adoptive father before he died. Such payments, which as a matter of fact were not disputed by the adopted son and had never been disputed since the death of the adoptive father, could only be considered as gifts in presenti of certain cash, and could not possibly constitute a claim to anything in the nature of an annuity.

5. We agree with the Judge that Ex. 82 offended against the law of minors and the general principles of Hindu law as regards adoption We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


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