VARIANGATTIL PALISSERI RAMAN MENON Vs. THIRUTHIPALLI RAMAN MENON
LAWS(PVC)-1900-7-38
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on July 07,1900

Variangattil Palisseri Raman Menon Appellant
VERSUS
Thiruthipalli Raman Menon Respondents

JUDGEMENT

LINDLEY, J. - (1.) THE question raised by this appeal is whether the elder of two brothers, who were the two surviving members of their taravad, and the elder of whom was its karnavan, was entitled to adopt four persons so as to make them members of the taravad without the consent of the younger brother. The younger brother after the death of the elder sued to set aside the adoption. The adoption was declared valid by the Court of first instance, but this decision was reversed by the High Court of Madras. The persons adopted have appealed from this decision to Her Majesty in Council.
(2.) THE younger brother has died since the action was commenced, and has left a will, and the real controversy between the parties is to whom the property of the taravad belongs. This controversy, however, is not now before their Lordships for adjudication. The only question before them is whether the High Court of Madras was right in deciding the adoption to be invalid. The litigation is between Nairs in South Malabar, and has to be decided according to the laws and usages of those persons. Those laws and usages are very peculiar; some of them are so well established as to be judicially noticed without proof. But others of them are still in that stage in which proof of them is required before they can be judicially recognised and enforced. The Nairs are persons amongst whom polyandry is legally recognised; and descent of property through females is acknowledged law. A right (and perhaps duty) to adopt females into the family or taravad when necessary to preserve it appears also to be in accordance with their law. Speaking generally, it may be safe to say that this right is vested in the karnavan or head of the family. This is so stated in Strange's Manual of Hindu Law, Section 403. So far their Lordships are prepared to assume the law peculiar to the Nairs to be established, and not to require proof in any particular case. But beyond this they are not prepared to go. The passage in Strange's Manual does not really mean more than above stated. There is no sacred book or other writing having legal authority, and there is no series of decisions which can be appealed to in order to determine the circumstances under which, and the consents, if any, subject to which the karnavan for the time being can adopt strangers into the family, and thereby make them and their descendants heirs to its property. Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that under these circumstances the burden of proving the validity of the adoption made in this case is upon those who assert its validity; and that the only question which their Lordships have to consider is whether the appellants have shown that the adoption in dispute in these proceedings is in accordance with the law or custom of the Nairs.
(3.) MR . Mayne in his very able argument drew attention to all the authorities bearing on the point, and to some previous adoption deeds, and to the verbal evidence adduced by the parties in this particular case. The authorities and adoption deeds do not really come nearly up to what is wanted; not one of them shows that a karnavan ever adopted a stranger into the family without consulting the other members of it.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.