Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Patkar
  • Baker, JJ.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Patkar
  • Baker, JJ.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion Summary (extract)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal challenging the validity of an adoption (of "defendant 2") effected by "defendant 1" (the adopting widow). The court first considered whether the authority alleged by Bhimabai (defendant 1) to make the adoption had been proved. It then considered whether, if that authority were not proved, the adoption would nonetheless be valid. A subsidiary factual question was whether two male relatives, Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda, were joint members of a coparcenary or had separated (the jointness question affected whether consent or authority was required). The lower court had held the adoption invalid; the appeal challenges that conclusion. The opinion records extended consideration of evidence about separation (including reference to a separation by a third brother, Khandappagowda), and extensive legal discussion of authorities concerning a widow's power to adopt in a joint Hindu family.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the authority alleged by Bhimabai (defendant 1) to adopt defendant 2 was proved.
  2. If that authority was not proved, whether the adoption of defendant 2 was nevertheless valid under the law (in light of Privy Council and Full Bench decisions such as Yadao v. Namdeo, Harigir v. Anand Bharathi, and Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai).
  3. Whether Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda were joint coparceners or had separated (a factual question with legal consequences for the validity of the adoption).
  4. As an alternate ground asserted by the respondent, whether the adoption was invalid because the property in suit was watan property and, on the authority cited, could not be divested by the adoption.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

  • Even if the authority alleged by Bhimabai is not proved, the adoption of defendant 2 is valid: appellants relied on Privy Council decisions (especially Yadao v. Namdeo and Harigir v. Anand Bharathi) to support the proposition that a widow can effect a valid adoption in specified circumstances without separate proof of authority from her deceased husband.
  • On the question of separation, appellants relied on Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai to argue that when one member (Khandappagowda) separated, that separation was virtually the separation of all, and whether remaining coparceners remained joint or became separate depends on agreement, which must be proved like any other fact.
  • Appellants emphasized distinctions in the facts of the Privy Council cases and contended those authorities support validity of the adoption even absent express authority from the deceased husband.

Respondent's Arguments

  • If the authority alleged by Bhimabai is not proved and Jivangowda and Nilkanthagowda remained joint, then the adoption is invalid under the Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai, which (the respondent argued) limits a widow's power to adopt in an undivided family in the absence of express authority or the consent of surviving coparceners.
  • It was further argued that the adoption would be invalid because the property in suit was watan property that passed to Dattatraya on the death of Dyamangowda and could not be divested by the adoption, relying on Bhimabai v. Tayappa Murarrao and Adiveva v. Chanmallgowda.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Yadao v. Namdeo Privy Council authority relied upon by appellants to argue that a widow may, in certain circumstances, effect a valid adoption even if the husband's authority is not separately proved. The court considered Yadao but treated its facts as distinguishable; Yadao did not displace the Full Bench rule applicable in this Presidency as explained in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai.
Harigir v. Anand Bharathi (A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 127) Privy Council decision factually similar to Yadao; cited for the proposition that consent of certain kinsmen may validate a widow's adoption in particular facts. The court distinguished Harigir on its facts and concluded it did not affect the Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu; Harigir was not controlling in the present case.
Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai (Full Bench) Full Bench holding that, in the Bombay Presidency, a widow of a deceased coparcener has no inherent right to adopt without either the authority of her husband or the consent of the surviving coparceners in whom the estate is vested by survivorship. The court held this Full Bench decision to be binding on it, followed its rule, and applied it to conclude the adoption was invalid in the absence of proved authority or consent.
Bhimabai v. Tayappa Murarrao Authority cited for the proposition that adoption may be invalid where the property is watan property and cannot be divested by such an adoption. The court noted this authority was relied on by the respondent but found it unnecessary to decide the question because the adoption was invalid on other grounds.
Adiveva v. Chanmallgowda Similar authority cited regarding watan property and invalidity of adoption affecting such property. The court observed the authority but did not decide the point because it was unnecessary in light of other conclusions reached.
Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai Cited for the proposition that any agreement to reunite or remain joint must be proved like any other fact; used in discussion of separation and jointness. The court considered the case but found the evidence supported jointness here; it did not accept a suggestion of reunion and relied on broader authority to determine jointness on the facts.
Jati v. Banwari Lal Privy Council decision referenced concerning consequences of separation and the determination of whether remaining members continue joint. Used as part of the suite of authorities showing that on the separation of one member, the remaining coparceners may remain joint absent evidence to the contrary; the court applied that principle to the facts and evidence.
Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniagar Holds that after separation an agreement by remaining members to continue undivided may be inferred from the way their business is carried on. The court cited this case as instructive and used it in assessing the evidence whether Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda continued joint after Khandappagowda's separation.
Babanna v. Parava Affirms that remaining coparceners may continue as members of a joint family after one member's separation and that continuation is a question for evidence. The court relied on this authority in concluding, on the evidence, that Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda remained joint.
Ramji v. Ghamau Rule (as stated in the opinion) that in the absence of express authority from her husband, a widow in an undivided family cannot adopt without the consent of surviving coparceners. The Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu was held not to have been overruled on this main point; the court treated Ramji as still authoritative in the relevant circumstances and applied that principle to invalidate the adoption here.
Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sethupathy Privy Council observations on whose assent (the husband's kinsmen or natural guardians) may supply the want of the husband's positive authority to a widow's adoption and how the question depends on family condition. The court quoted and relied on these observations to explain which kinsmen's consent could supply authority and to distinguish cases on their facts; these remarks supported the court's conclusion about the necessity of proper authority or consent.
Virada Pratapa Raghunadha v. Brozo Kishoro (Sri Raghunadha v. Sri Brozo Kishoro) Privy Council remarks referenced on related questions of assent/authority for widow's adoption. The court cited the case in support of its analysis about assent and the limits of a widow's power to adopt without proper authority.
Mallappa v. Hanmappa Explains that a widow may exercise the right to adopt even if the husband died in union, provided she inherited as the mother of a son who had effected partition with the other coparceners (i.e., a factual exception). The court used this authority to explain the scope of the exception to the general rule and to distinguish facts where the exception applies from the present facts.
Ganesh v. Gurnath; Bala v. Akubai Subsequent cases following the Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai. The court cited these as later decisions of this Court that follow the Full Bench, reinforcing that Ishvar Dadu is binding precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps, tied closely to the facts and to binding precedent in this jurisdiction:

  1. Determination of authority alleged by Bhimabai:
    • The court first framed the question whether the authority said to have been conferred on Bhimabai (defendant 1) to adopt defendant 2 had been proved. After considering the evidence, the court concluded that such authority was not proved.
  2. Determination of jointness between Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda:
    • The court examined the evidence concerning the separation of Khandappagowda (who had separated in 1895) and whether the remaining brothers remained joint. Drawing on authorities (Palani Ammal, Babanna, Jati, Balabux Ladhuram and others), the court concluded on the factual evidence that Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda remained joint coparceners after Khandappagowda's separation.
  3. Application of legal authorities on the widow's power to adopt:
    • Appellants invoked Privy Council decisions (notably Yadao v. Namdeo and Harigir v. Anand Bharathi) to argue that an adoption by the widow could be valid even absent separate proof of her husband's authority. The court carefully considered these Privy Council authorities but distinguished their facts from the present case.
    • The court emphasized the binding Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai, which constrains a widow's power to adopt in the Bombay Presidency: absent an express authority from her husband or the consent of the surviving coparceners in whom the estate is vested at the time of the adoption, the widow cannot validly adopt. The court held that Ramji v. Ghamau's main principle (that a widow cannot adopt without express authority or consent of surviving coparceners) remains applicable in the relevant circumstances, and that Ishvar Dadu remains binding on this court.
    • The court referred to Collector of Madura and Virada Pratapa Raghunadha for guidance about whose assent can supply the husband's authority and to show that facts relating to separation and whose interests would be affected are crucial in deciding whether assent by particular kinsmen suffices.
  4. Synthesis and conclusion:
    • Because authority was not proved and because, on the facts, the husband’s coparceners remained joint (so that their consent or an express authority would have been necessary under binding Full Bench precedent), the court concluded the adoption was invalid.
    • The court explicitly distinguished the Privy Council authorities relied on by the appellants and relied on the binding Full Bench authority and subsequent cases of this Court in reaching its conclusion.
    • The court also noted the respondent's alternate submission about watan property but found it unnecessary to decide that question because the adoption was invalid on the authority-related ground.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

APPEAL DISMISSED

The court upheld the view of the lower court: the adoption of defendant 2 by defendant 1 was invalid because the alleged authority to adopt (as set up by Bhimabai/defendant 1) was not proved and, on the evidence, the relevant male relatives remained joint coparceners such that the widow lacked an inherent power to adopt in the absence of express authority or the consent of those coparceners under binding Full Bench authority (Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai). The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: the adoption is declared invalid and the lower court's decision is affirmed; costs were awarded against the appellants.
  • Precedential impact: the court applied and reaffirmed the binding nature of the Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai within this Court's jurisdiction and distinguished the Privy Council decisions relied upon by the appellants on their facts. The opinion did not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying existing authorities.
  • Secondary grounds (watan-property argument) were noted but left undecided because the court's principal reasoning made it unnecessary to rule on them.

This summary reflects only the information and reasoning contained in the provided opinion extract and does not add, infer or interpret facts or law beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

    Bhimabai Jivangouda Patil v. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda

    Patkar, J.:— (After stating the facts as above his Lordship proceeded.) The validity of the adoption of defendant 2 would depend, firstly, on the question whether the authority set up by defendant 1 was proved, and, secondly if the authority was not proved, whether the adoption of: defendant 2 was valid. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that even if the authority alleged by Bhimabai is not proved and even if Jivangowda is held not to have separated from Nilakantagowda, the adoption would be valid according to the ruling in Yadao v. Namdeo(1) and Harigir v. Anand Bharathi, A.I.R 1925 P.C 127. It is urged on the other hand that, if the authority alleged by Bhimabai is, not proved, and if Jivangowda and Nilkantagowda continued to be joint, the adoption of defendant 2 would be invalid according to the decision of the Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai(2) that the decision of the Privy Council in Harigir v. Anand Bharathi was delivered prior to the decision of the Full Bench in December 1925, and did, not affect the decision of the Full Bench, on the special facts of that case, and that whole of the property in suit being watan property, the adoption of defendant 2 was invalid on the authority of the rulings in Bhimabai v. Tayappa Murarrao(3) and Adiveva v. Chanmallgowda(4). (The judgment then considered the question of authority to adopt alleged by Bhimabai and holding that it was not proved, proceeded). On the question as to the jointness or separation between Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda, it is urged on behalf of the appellants, relying on the case of Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai(5), that the separation of Khandappagowda, one of the members of the joint family, was virtually the separation of all, and the question whether the remaining coparceners remained joint or united would depend upon the agreement between the parties, and that such agreement must be proved like any other fact. Having regard to the decisions of the Privy Council in Jati v. Banwari Lal(6) and Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniagar(7) and the decision in Babanna v. Parava(8), I think it is clear that when a member of a joint family separates, the remaining coparceners without any special agreement among themselves may continue to be coparceners and enjoy as members of a joint family the remaining property after such a partition of the family property, and the question whether or not the other members of the family continue to be joint or separate is to be determined on the evidence in the case. (The judgment then dealt with the evidence and, holding that after Khandappagowda separated, Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda continued to be joint, proceeded.)

    2. The next question is whether the adoption of defendant 2 is valid. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the adoption of defendant 2 is valid even if the authority to adopt alleged to have been given by Jivangowda is held not proved on the authority of the Privy Council decisions in Yadao v. Namdeo and Harigir v. Anand Bharathi. The case of Yadao v. Namdeo has been considered in the Full Bench decision in the case of Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai, and it was held that, under Hindu law, in the Bombay Presidency, the widow of a deceased coparcener in a joint family has no inherent right to make a valid adoption, without either the authority of her husband or the consent of the surviving coparceners of her husband and, that the decision in Ramji v. Ghamau(9) has not been overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Yadao v. Namdeo.

    3. In the case of Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sethwpathy(10) their Lordships of the Privy Council said (pp. 433 and 441):

    According to the doctrine of the Benares and Maharashtra schools, prevailing in the Peninsula, it (assent of the husband) may be supplied by that of his kindred, her natural guardians; … The question who are the kinsmen whose assent will supply the want of positive authority from the deceased husband, is the first to suggest itself. Where the husband's family is in the normal condition of a Hindu family,—i.e, undivided—that question is of comparatively easy solution. In such a case the widow, under the law of all the schools which admit this disputed power of adoption, takes no interest in her husband's share of the joint estate, except a right to maintenance and though the father of the husband, if alive, might, as the head of the family and the natural guardian of the widow, be competent by his sole assent to authorize an adoption by her, yet, if there be no father, the consent of all the brothers, who, in default of adoption, would take the husband's share, would probably be required, since it would be unjust to allow the widow to defeat their interest by introducing a new coparcener against their will. Where, however, as in the present case, the widow has taken by inheritance then separate estate of her husband, there is greater difficulty in laying down a rule.

    4. Reference may also be made to the remarks of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Virada Pratapa Raghunadha v. Brozo Kishoro(11).

    5. In the Full Bench case of Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai the facts in the case of Yadao v. Namdeo have been distinguished on the ground that Pandurang had separated and Yadao was adopted by Champabai when she inherited as the mother of Pandurang after his separation, and that the decision in Yadao v. Namdeo was in conflict with the decision in Ramji v. Ghamau only on the point of the validity of the adoption by a Hindu widow in a joint Hindu family where the husband died in union, leaving an express authority to the widow to adopt, and where subsequently the estate came to be vested in the widow as the heir of her son adopted in pursuance of the said authority, on account of the subsequent partition between the son and the other coparceners, and the estate was vested in her at the time of the adoption. It is not necessary that the husband of the adopting widow must be a separate member at the time of his death in order that the widow may have a right to adopt. Even if the husband died while he was united with his brothers and as a member of the joint family, the right may be exercised by the widow, when she inherited as the mother of her son who, in the meantime, had effected a partition with the other coparceners: see Mallappa v. Hanmappa(12). Shah, J., in Ishwar Dadu v. Gajabai observes (p. 820):

    Thus, on a careful consideration of the observations in Yadao v. Namdeo, as also of the basis of the rule in Ramji v. Ghamau, I am of opinion that, though Ramji v. Ghamau is overruled so far as it an be held to conflict with the decision in Yadao v. Namdeo i.e, where the husband died in union, leaving an express authority to the widow to adopt, and where subsequently the estate came to be vested in the widow as the heir of her son adopted in pursuance of the said authority, on account of a subsequent partition between the son and other coparcener, and where the estate was so vested in her at the time of the adoption, it is not overruled so far as the main point involved in Ramji v. Ghamau is concerned, viz., that where the husband died in union leaving no express authority to the widow to adopt, the widow cannot adopt without the consent of the surviving coparceners in whom the estate is vested by survivorship at the time of the adoption. In the absence of any decision of the Privy Council to the contrary, I think we should still follow the rule in Ramji v. Ghamau, that, in the absence of an express authority of her husband, the widow of a Hindu coparcener in an undivided family cannot adopt without the consent of the surviving coparceners, in whom the property is vested by survivorship at the time of the adoption, as it is plainly out duty to give effect to it, if it still appears to us to represent the true limit of the widow's power to adopt in a joint Hindu family in this Presidency. The other view would expose joint families to risks of adoption by widows of deceased coparceners to which, according to the law as I understand it, they are not exposed, to which this High Court has consistently refused to expose them according to its interpretation of Hindu law, and to which according to the observations in the Ramnad's case and Virada Pratapa Raghunadhas case they should not be exposed.

    6. The decision of the Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai has been followed in subsequent cases of this Court: Ganesh v. Gurnath(13), Bala v. Akubai(14), and Babanna v. Parava: and the decision of the Full Bench is binding on this Court.

    7. With regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Harigir v. Anand Bharathi the facts in that case are similar to the facts in Yadeo v. Namdeo. It was held in that case that before the death of Vishnu, Vishnu's uncle Ram Krishna had separated from his father, Zingar. The plaintiff's father Vishnu was adopted in the year 1864 after the death of Jairam in 1863 by the widow of Jairam and before the death of the father-in-law Zingar in 1869. Ram Krishna, the brother of Jairam, had separated before the date of the adoption. At p. 127 it appears that it was asserted by the plaintiff that after Jairam's death, his widow with the concurrence of Zingar adopted Vishnu. If Zingar, the father-in-law, consented to the adoption by his daughter-in-law, the adoption of Vishnu would be valid, and the consent of Ram Krishna would not be necessary. At p. 128 it appears as if the finding of the Court was that Zingar consented to the adoption, for it is said:

    This ceremony could not be performed after the death of the widow, and the adoptive grandfather, Zingar—though he might concur with the widow—could not of himself make an adoption to his son.

    8. It was not necessary in that case to consider the question whether Ram Krishna had-consented to the adoption, for, according to the finding, he had separated before the date of the adoption in 1864, and a reference was made to Yadao v. Namdeo where their Lordships dealt with the contention that Ram Krishna had been adopted by his uncle Mana, when both parties appeared to have thought that there could be no adoption in a family where there were males, unless indeed with the consent of them all. There is no specific finding that Zingar consented, though it appears from the allegation of the plaintiff and the passage above referred to that Zingar consented to the adoption, and it was held that the consent of the other males was not necessary, and therefore the question as to the adoption of Ram Krishna by Mana was not necessary to be considered. Their Lordships, however, clearly found in the following passage that Ram Krishna had separated from Zingar before the date of Vishnu's adoption. The facts, therefore, in the case of Harigir v. Anand Bharatki can be distinguished on the ground stated above, and the decision of the Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai is binding on this Court and having regard to the decisions of the Privy Council in The Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sethupathy and in Sri Raghunadha v. Sri Brozo Kishoro, we think that the adoption of defendant 2 was invalid in the absence of an authority of Jivangowda.

    9. It is not, therefore, necessary to go into the question urged on behalf of the respondent that the adoption is also invalid on the ground that Dyamangowda was the last owner of the watan property in suit which went to Dattatraya on his death, and the latter could not be divested by the adoption by defendant 1 of defendant 2 on 17th September, 1919, on the authority of the ruling in Bhimabai v. Tayappa Murarrao and Adiveva v. Chanmallgowda.

    10. We think, therefore, that the view of the lower Court is correct, and this appeal should be dismissed with costs.

    11. Baker, J.:— (After setting forth the facts his Lordship continued.) The first point is whether Jivangowda and Nilkanthagowda were joint or separate and the second is whether the adoption by defendant 1 of defendant 2 is valid. The evidence on the question of the jointness or separation of Nilkanthagowda and Jivsngowda has been discussed at great length by the Subordinate Judge. I do act propose to go into the details because there are certain outstanding facts in connexion with it which can lead to only one conclusion.

    12. Admittedly, Khandappagowda separated from his brothers in 1895. There is no partition dead. The learned pleader for the appellant has relied on Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai as showing that the agreement to reunite or to remain joint must be proved like any other fact. There is no suggestion of reunion here and there is a great deal of evidence on the question of the brothers remaining joint.

    13. The latest case on the point is Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniagar which lays down that when one member of a joint family has separated an agreement by the remaining members to continue undivided may be inferred from the way in which their business is carried on after the separation. In Babanna v. Parava, which follows that case, it is stated:

    A member of a joint Hindu family can separate himself from the other members of the joint family, and is, on separation, entitled to have his share in the property of the joint family ascertained and partitioned off for him, but the remaining coparceners, without any special agreement amongst themselves, may continue to be coparceners and to enjoy as members of a joint family, what remained after such a partition of the family property. The question whether or not the remaining members of the family continue joint or separate is to be determined by evidence. (The judgment then discussed evidence and holding that Nilkanthagowda and Jivangowda were joint proceeded.)

    14. This being the case defendant 1 had, no authority to adopt defendant 2 without the consent of her husband's coparceners as has been held by this Court in the Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai in which it was held that the decision in Ramji v. Ghamau has not been overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Yadao v. Namdeo. We are bound to follow this decision, and no authority in this case has been proved. This part of the case has been dealt with in detail by my learned brother and I agree that the adoption is invalid. The result is that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

    D.R/R.K

    15. Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Bhimabai Jivangouda Patil v. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda
    (Feb 28, 1928)