Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The validity of the adoption depends solely upon the question as to whether Shanti Debi, the natural mother of Dibyendu could have been married in her maiden state by Rajendu. The parties are Brahmins. Special custom is not alleged. The parties being of the twice born class, the following rules are applicable : (1) The bridegroom and the bride must not be of the same gotra and pravara. (2) The bride must not be a descendant within the seventh degree from the bridegroom's father and of the latter's six male ancestors. (3) She must not be a descendant within the fifth degree from the bridegroom's maternal grandfather and of the latter's four male ancestors. (4) She must not be a descendant within seven degrees of the bridegroom's father's bandhus, and of the latter's six male ancestors, and (5) she must not be a descendant within five degrees of the bridegroom's mother's bandus and of the latter's four male ancestors.

11. To these rules there is an important exception. It is that if the bride is removed by three gotras, she would be eligible for marriage even if she falls within the prohibited degrees as defined in rules Nos .II to V. The admitted pedigree is as follows:

RAJA MOHANANDA (Gautam Gotra) | (2) | __________________________________________ | | | Raja Narendra Narayan=Bhaba Tarini Son-S1 Daughter, Anna Purna (Sankrit Gotra) | (3) | | Son-S2 | ________________ Daughter, Jatindra Mohini (Kasyap Gotra) | | (4) | Sarajendu Purnendu | | (Pundarik Gotra) | | | | | Rajendu Do daughter, Santi Debi

12. S2 is Rajendu's pitri bandhu, being the maternal uncle's son of his father, Purnendu. Santi Debi is the third in descent from the paternal grandfather of S2. She accordingly comes within the prohibition of rule No. IV and unless she comes within the exception, the trigotra rule as it is called, she would not have been eligible for Rajendu. Rajendu's gotra was Pundarik, the gotra of S2, S1 and Raja Mahananda was Gautam. Anna Purna on marriage adopted her husband's gotra which was Sankrit, Jotir Mohini on her marriage got her husband's gotra which was Kasyap and Santi Debi in her maiden state had the same gotra, namely Kasyap, the gotra of her father. Counting Rajendu's gotra as the first, there are four gotras altogether and so she was removed from Rajendu's gotra by three gotras. If, therefore, Rajendu's gotra be taken into the computation for the trigotra rule, Santi Debi would have been eligible for Rajendu in spite of the fact that she fell within the prohibition of rule No. IV. Whether that gotra can be taken into consideration or not is therefore the vital question. If it can be Santi Debi would have been eligible, if not, she would not be eligible for Rajendu. Both Guru Das Bannerjee and Mr. Shyama Charan Sarkar have expressed the opinion that in the matter of computation for the trigotra rule the bridegroom's gotra has to be reckoned. Both state the scope of the exception in the following manner : "A girl who is removed by three gotras from the bridegroom is not unmarriage-able, though related within seven or five-degrees as above described." (Tagore Law Lectures on Marriage and Stridhan, page 64, Edn. 4 and Vyavastha Darpana, page 662, Edn. 2). The illustration given at the top of p. 65 of the said Tagore Law Lectures and that given at the foot-note of page 662 of the Vyavastha Darpana (Edn. 2) make it clear that if on proceeding from the boy's gotra to that of the girl's there are four gotras in all the girl would be regarded as being removed by three gotras from the boy and would be eligible for marriage. Those illustrations make it clear that it will be legitimate to take into account the boy's gotra in the matter of calculation. It has, however, been contended by the learned advocates for the appellant that the trigotra rule as expressed in general terms by Sir Gurudas Bannerjee and by Mr. Shyama Charan Sarkar is not what has been understood and defined by Baghunandan, where the connexion between the boy and the girl is through a bandhu. In that case it is said that the counting of gotras must commence from the Bandhu's gotra, or the Bandhu's maternal grandfather's gotra as the case may be, and not from the gotra of the boy or of his father (which is the same). It is further said that Sir Gurudas Bannerjee in a way recognized this at the passage at the bottom of p. 64 of his Tagore Law Lectures (Edn. 2). In support of his contention the appellant's advocate has placed reliance upon the twenty-first stanza of Raghunandan's Udhahatattwa the material portion of which as translated in this Court at page 512, Part 1 of the paper books is as follows:

In counting the three gotras with respect to the descendants of a Bandhu it should be commenced from the Bandhus own gotra but in counting the three gotras with respect of the male ancestors of the Bandhu the three gotras should be counted commencing from the Bandhu's gotra, where such Bandhu is the father's maternal uncle's son or the mother's maternal uncle's son and that in case of other Bandhus the counting should commence from the Bandhus maternal grandfather's gotra.

13. In our judgment the illustrations given by Raghunandan immediately after this passage bring out the meaning of this passage. The starting point is only indicated, but the passage does not prohibit that in the course of counting from that starting point the counting should proceed from the Bandhu only towards the girl's family and not towards the boy's. The boy's gotras may not be taken into account, but we do not understand why on this passage the boy's father's gotra which is the same as that of the boy, should not be reckoned. The first illustration of Raghunandan is represented by the following table: (M represents males, F females in the table) M | ______________________________ | | M F | | M _________________ | | | Roy M(B) F | F | Girl 14 (B) is the father's bandhu, being his (father's) paternal aunt's son. Raghunandan says that the girl would have been eligible for the boy if the counting commenced from M(B)'s gotra, but as the counting has to be made from M(B)'s maternal grandfather's gotra according to the rule formulated, because, the bandhu is not the father's maternal uncle's son, she is not eligible as she falls within three gotras. In the illustration the girl would not be beyond three gotras on a counting being made from M(B)'s gotra unless the gotra of the boy or of his father, (which is the same) were taken into consideration. We accordingly hold that the rule as formulated in Exception No. 1 in Sir Gurudas Banerjee's Tagore Law Lectures at p. 64 (Edn. 2) is a correct interpretation of Raghunandan and as in the case before us there are four gotras in all in proceeding from the gotra of Rajendu's father to the gotra of Santi Debi's father, the marriage between Santi Debi and Rajendu would have been valid. The adoption of Dibyendu by Anilabala is accordingly valid in law. The most important question in this case is what were the terms of the compromise. We have set out the plaintiff's version of it in the earlier part of our judgment and we have to determine whether that version is true. (After going through the evidence their Lordships proceeded.) In our judgment it has been established that four of the terms of the compromise were (1) that Dibyendu was to be adopted, (2) the second will of Rajendu, Ex. O-1, was to be probated, (3) Patitpaban was to continue in management under Anilabala, as executrix, and (4) Anilabala was to be the shebait of the deities to whom certain properties were to be dedicated.