BASWANTRAO Vs. DEORAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MITCHELL , A.J.C. 1. 20th October 1926.-The only question in this appeal is the effect of a certain adoption, which is being challenged by a group of collateral's who would be reversioners but for the adoption, and is being supported by the adopted son and various persons claiming under him. The parties are Maratha Deshmukhs of the Amraoti district, governed by the Hindu Law as interpreted in Maharashtra. The following tree shows enough of the family for the purposes of this appeal. Januji (d. 18-7-75) ___________________|_________________ | | Saraswati Bai : Venkat Rao Baliram (d. 7-5-22) |(d. c. 1870) (d. 13-5-75) | Deorao (adopted 22-1-93)

(2.) THE adopted son Deorao is himself a collateral by birth to Januji, removed by ten degrees. The plaintiff-appellants are collaterals of still another branch and are removed from Januji by nine degrees. The property which forms the subject of the dispute was held by Januji as last male holder. He died on 18-7-75 leaving no member of his branch of the family except Saraswati Bai, the widow of one of his predeceased sons. Saraswati Bai got possession of his estate and remained in possession, latterly along with her adopted son Deorao, till her death on 7-5-22. It is not now disputed that on 22-1-93 Saraswati Bai adopted the defendant Deorao as son to her deceased husband Venkat Rao.

(3.) ARGUMENT in this appeal has been lengthy, and rulings have been cited which run into scores. General propositions of Hindu Law have been cited as destructive of Deorao's claim, and have been resisted as inapplicable or unsound. It will be convenient to classify these propositions into two groups: (1) those principles whose application is disputed; and (2) those propositions whose soundness is not admitted. It should be premised that the parties are Hindus of Maharashtra, where a widow who has not been expressly forbidden by her husband may adopt a son to him without having to prove his consent, provided she does so in the proper bona fide performance of a religious duty, and neither capriciously nor from a corrupt motive nor in the ignorance of her rights : Yadao v. Namdeo A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 216. No disentitling circumstances have been pleaded against the adoption in this case, and it is not disputed that Deorao is the validly adopted son of Venkat Rao. The question is whether he is heir to the estate of Januji.