Skip to content


Jhunka Prasad Vs. Nathu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR35All263
AppellantJhunka Prasad
RespondentNathu
Excerpt:
hindu law - adoption--ahirs--validity of adoption after marriage of adopted son. - .....the plaintiff at the time of the alleged adoption was a married man. it is admitted that among the twice-born classes a married man cannot be adopted. the court below says that ahirs belong to the twice-born classes. this assertion is challenged in appeal. however that may be, there is authority for holding that the adoption of a married man is not valid even amongst sudras. in the case of pichuvayyan v. subbayyan (1889) i.l.r. 13 mad., 128 it was said that an adoption in order to be valid even among sudras must take place before the marriage of the adopted son. reference is made to the dattaka chandrika. the same rule is to be found in the text-books on the subject. we see no reason to differ from the finding of the court below on this point. as to the question of estoppel we hold that.....
Judgment:

Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.

1. The plaintiff claiming to be the adopted son of defendant sued for partition. His suit was dismissed by both the courts below on the finding that the alleged adoption was invalid. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. The parties are ahirs. The plaintiff at the time of the alleged adoption was a married man. It is admitted that among the twice-born classes a married man cannot be adopted. The court below says that ahirs belong to the twice-born classes. This assertion is challenged in appeal. However that may be, there is authority for holding that the adoption of a married man is not valid even amongst Sudras. In the case of Pichuvayyan v. Subbayyan (1889) I.L.R. 13 Mad., 128 it was said that an adoption in order to be valid even among Sudras must take place before the marriage of the adopted son. Reference is made to the Dattaka Chandrika. The same rule is to be found in the text-books on the subject. We see no reason to differ from the finding of the court below on this point. As to the question of estoppel we hold that there is no estoppel in a case of this nature. The plea of limitation in our opinion has no force. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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