Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)Hem Singh And Another vs Harnam Singh And Another on 1 April, 1954
In the case of Hem Singh (supra)
this court quoted with approval of some of the observations in
Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law at Page 541 of XI Edition with
such observations in paragraph 434 to the following effect:
Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai vs Sanatan Singh on 4 April, 1933
The Privy Council's decision in
Amarendra Mansingh's case (supra), has reiterated the well
established doctrine as to the religious efficacy of sonship, as
the foundation of adoption. The emhasis has been on the
absence of a male issue. An adoption may either be made by a
man himself or by his widow on his behalf. The adoption is to
the male and it is obvious that an unmarried woman cannot
adopt. For the purpose of adoption is to ensure spiritual
benefit for a man after his death by offering of oblations and
rice and libations of water to the manes periodically. Woman
having no spiritual needs to be satisfied, was not allowed to
adopt for herself. But in either it is a condition precedent for a
valid adoption that he should be without any male issue living
at the time of adoption."
Shri Kishori Lal vs Mst. Chaltibai on 1 December, 1958
This object is further amplified by certain observations of
this Court. It has been held that an adoption results in
changing the course of succession, depriving wife and
daughters of their rights, and transferring the properties to
comparative strangers or more remote relations. [See : Kishori
Lal v. Chaltibai (AIR 1959 SC 504)]. Though undeniably in
most of the cases motive is religious, the secular motive is also
dominantly present. We are not concerned much with this
controversy, and as observed by Mayne it is unsafe to embark
upon an enquiry in each case as to whether the motives for a
particular adoption were religious or secular and an
intermediate view is possible that while an adoption may be a
proper act, inspired in many cases by religious motives, courts
are concerned with an adoption, only as the exercise of a legal
right by certain persons.
Mookka Kone Alias Vannia Kone And Ors. vs Ammakutti Alias Vannichi Ammal And Anr. on 8 February, 1927
In Mookka Kone v. Ammakutti Ammal [AIR 1928 Mad
299 (FB)], it was held that where custom is set up to prove
that it is at variance with the ordinary law, it has to be proved
that it is not opposed to public policy and that it is ancient,
invariable, continuous, notorious, not expressly forbidden by
the legislature and not opposed to morality or public policy. It
is not disputed that even under the old Hindu law, adoption
during the lifetime of a male issue was specifically prohibited.
In addition, I have observed that such an adoption even if
made would be contrary to the concept of adoption and the
purpose thereof, and unreasonable. Without entering into the
arena of controversy whether there was such a custom, it can
be said that even if there was such a custom, the same was
not a valid custom."