Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.32 seconds)Hem Singh And Another vs Harnam Singh And Another on 1 April, 1954
In Hem Singh v. Harnam Singh (AIR 1954 SC 581), it was
observed by this Court that under the Hindu Law adoption is
primarily a religious act intended to confer spiritual benefit on
the adopter and some of the rules have, therefore, been held to
be mandatory, and compliance with them regarded as a
condition of the validity of the adoption.
Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai vs Sanatan Singh on 4 April, 1933
Under the old law, 'male issue' was indicated and it was
held at it was to be taken in the wide sense peculiar to the
term in Hindu Law to mean three direct descendants in the
male line. (See Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage referred to
above at page 334). Even if for the sake of argument in the
instant case, it is accepted that a custom was prevalent
authorising adoption in the presence of a male issue, yet it
being contrary to the very concept of adoption cannot be said
to have any force. Adoption is made to ensure spiritual benefit
for a man after his death. Public policy is not defined in the
Act. However, it connotes some matter which concerns the
public good or the public interest. No strait-jacket formula can
be laid down to hold what is for the public good or for the
public interest, or what would be injurious or harmful to the
public good or public interest. What is public good must be
inconsonance with public conscience. Speaking about 'public
policy', Lord Atkin said, "the doctrine should only be invoked
in clear cases in which the harm to the public is substantially
incontestable, and does not depend upon the idiosyncratic
inference of a few judicial minds.
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
dominant 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.
Thakur Gokalchand vs Parvin Kumari on 16 May, 1952
A "custom", in order to be binding, must derive its force
from the fact that by long usage it has obtained the force of
law, but the English rule that "a custom in order that it may
be legal and binding, must have been used so long that the
memory of man runneth not to the contrary" should not be
strictly applied to Indian Conditions. (See Thakur Gokalchand
v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231).