(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hindu Law"

HINDU LAW 



AK ADMINISTERED IN BRITWH INDIA, 



mr 
Sfft 1 ERNEST JOHN TREVELYAN, D.C.L. 

Bf ttBISTKB-AT-LAW ; FELLOW OF ALL 80UL8* COLLKOB, OXFOftD *, 

* RKA1>HU JS INDIAN ^AW IK THE UNIVKUSITY OF OX^OED J 
LKCTURKK ON HINDU AND MAHOMKDAN LAW TO THB COPNCtjj 0^ LEGAL 
KDUC'ATIONJ FOHMMELY A JUDGK OF THB HIGH COURT OF ' a.CUTTA 



xlwd! /oin# Avttwr a/ " 5TAe jT^w Mtofag 



SECOND EDITION 



1 A1W) 1 SIMLA 

THAOKEB/ SPINK & CO, 

: ( W. TH ACKER & CO., 2, 
1917 



?&nftt& BY 

WIU.UU CLOVES AKfi SONS, LIMTTEP, 
LONDON AX0 BXCCLE0* 



PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 

I HAVE revised this book, have added a considerable 
amount of matter to it, and have brought it up to date. 
I must again express my special and great obliga- 
tion to the learned works of Sir Gooroo Dass Banerjee, 
Pundit Rajkumar Sarvadhikari, Dr. Jogendra Nath 
Bhattacharya, Sastri G. C. Sarkar, and Mr. J. C. Ghose. 
I have made frequent reference to them, and would 
recommend all who are interested in the subject to 
study tkose works at first hand* Without t% help 

of works such as those it is lmposibte $r o^.who 

1 ' , i ' * '' i ' ' 

is ignorant of Sanskrit to grasp sufficiently lite teal 
principles of Hindu law. I have also frequently 
referred to Mr. Mayne's well-known bootc oif *S 
Law/ 1 

E. J. TREVELYA 



August, 1917, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGES 

PBBFACE ...,...,,.. v 

TABLE OF GASES CITED ,,.,,,,.. slil 

TABLE OF STATUTES, BBGULATIONS, AND ACTS CITED . . . xcvii 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND AUTHORITIES , , . . cv 



MNTBODUCTION. 

What is Hindu Law ?- Difference from other Systems Application 
in British India Sources of Hindu Law The Sastras The 
Schools Works of Authority To whom Law .applicable ~ 
Illegitimate Children Native Christians Law of Origin- 
Custom Conditions of Validity Discontinuance Proof * 1-32 



CHAPTER I. 

HUSBAND AND WIFE. 

MARRIAGE. 

Creation of Belationship Necessity Duty of Guardian Who may 
Marry Defects Age Polygamy Bemarriage Who may . 
Intermarry Bestrictions Identity of Caste Exogamy Pro- 
hibited Degrees of Belationship Affinity -Adopted Son Be- 
marriage of Widows Who may Give in Marriage Consent of 
Ward Loss of Bight Bemedy of Guardian Control by.Ooabtfs 
Guardian Appointed by Court Absence of Oonseni-^geiae- 
ment to pay Money Marriage Expenses Fornls of iatedage-- 
Ceremonies Disputes as to Marriage Divorce , . 33-64 



CHAPTEB II. 

HUSBAND AND WIFE Continued. 
BEOIPROOAI. BIGHTS AND DUTIES. 

Agreement varying Bights Bight of Husband to Society of Wife- 
Bight of Guardianship Bestraint of Wife Duty to Wife- 
Bight of Wife to Society of Husband Enforcement of Bight- 
Defences to Suit for Bestitution of Bights When Bight arises 
on of Decree Summary 



Via OJA3LB OF CONTENTS. 



Eights over Property Power of Wife Contract by 



Wile Power of Hmband^M&in 
of Widow *Loss of Sight AmounWWhen Charged op Pro. 
perty Wh,ert Purofc&ser BoundV-Suit for Maintenance -Duty 
of CotuHr Alteration of Order Execution of Pecree* Criminal 

, ,,,,,,,, 65-98 



CHAPTER in, 

RELATIONSHIP OF PARENT AND CHILD, AND 
ADOPTION. 

legitimate Children Presumption Illegitimate Children Palaka 
Pitira Sons Becognized in Ancient Times Adoption according 
to Dattaka Form Necessity Motive Custom Prohibiting 
Adoption- Agreement not to Adopt Adoption of Girl Who 
may Take Hissing Son Death of Sort Consent of Son Minor 

Courts o Wards Disentitled Persons Assent of Wife- 
Adoption by Woman Permission to Wife Form of Authority 
Revocation -Several Widows Contingent Power C/orisfcrac^ 
iaon Specification of Boy Motive of Widow Adoption by 
Widow Bengal School Benares School Dravida School 
Maharashtra School Mithila School Punjab Minor Widow 

When Widow can Adopt Successive Adoptions Termina- 
tion of Power Unchaste Widow Obligation to Adopt Agree- 
ment Capacity to Give 'Who may be Taken Belationship of 
Adopting Father to Natural Mother Age of Boy Orphan 
Adoption by Two Persons Personal Defects Simultaneous 
Adoptions Act of Adoption Consideration for Gift Con- 
ditional Gift Mental Capacity Fraud, etc. Assent of Person 

Ceremonies Requirements of "Valid Adop- 
Event Consent of Beven&kmeria Aoquies- 
Oteaofc li^ucellatlon or Benunoiation Erittima form of Adoption 

Special and Local Forms Gyawals Zftafow Malabar Adop- 
tionsNambudris Adoption by Dancing Girls and Prostitutes 
- Disputes as to Adoption Who Entitled to Dispute Declara- 
tory Deere Specific Performance Res Judwata-- Limitation 

Election* Burden of Proof Estoppel Mode of Proof Pro- 

. ..... 99-177 



CHAPTEB 
PARENT AND 
RESULTS OP DATTAKA ADOPTION. 

Operates as Affiliation Guardianship Survivorship Inheritarioe 
ywrtepaternd Inheritance exparte maternd Descendants 
tfalheafs Power over Property Will Arrangement Restraining 
Dispositoi or Limiting Interest Son Bom after Adoption 
Benunoiation or Waiver of Bights Exclusion from Natural 
Family Dvyamwhyayanor- Vesting and Devesting of Estate- 
Power to Dispute Acts of Widow Alienations Marriage and 
Adoption in Natural Family Effect of Rritrima, Adoption- 
Effects of Invalid Adoption Persona Designata , , , J78-205 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, fe 

CHAPTER V. 

PARENT AND CHILD Continued. 
DUTIES AND BIGHTS os 1 FATHER. 

Maintenance of Children Hlegitimate Children Widowed Daughter- 
in-Law Impartible Property Grandchildren Parents Duty 
of Heir as to Maintenance Guardianship Rights of Father 
and MotherLoss of Right Remarried Widows Remedies . 206-217 

CHAPTER VI, 
THE JOINT FAMILY AND ITS PROPERTY, 

Of what Family consists Joint Family according to Mitafcshara-* 
Disintegration Burden of Proof Separation in Dwelling and 
Food Separate Dealings Presumption Coparcenary Property 
Who are Coparceners Power of Disposition under Bengal 
School Exclusion from Goparcenership Rights of Coparceners 
Coparcenary Property Separate Property Burden of Proof 
Use of Name of Member Impartible Property . , . 218-265 



CHAMEtt Vlt 

MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY 
OF JOINT FAMILY. 

Application of Proceeds Payments Parties to Transaction To 
Suits Manager Duty Account Powers Family Business 
Compromise Decree against Manager Alienation and 
Charge By Coparcenary By Manager Necessity Discretion 
Nature of Inquiry Burden of Proof Acts of Coparcen ,r 
not Manager Alienation of Undivided Share Setting aside 
Alienation 266-807 



CHAPTER Till, 

THE DEBTS OF A FATHER UNDER 
MITAKSHARA LAW, 

Duty of Son to ay Father's Z^b-taRjght to Alienate Illegal ot 

r Sons Bound Parties 



to Suits When Interests of Sons Pass Money Decree 
Execution of Decree Burden of Proof Decree against Son 
Simple Contract Debts Limitation Liability after Partition 
Obligation of Heir ...... , 308-324 



PARTITION. 

is artition~-Who is Entitled to Partition Agreement not 
"t&' Kw^ttiop-^^tafkshara L*w Women Minos Birth after 



tABLB OF 

PAGES 

Partition Absent Coparceners Pur ckaser Rights of Wife and 
Widow Enforcement of Bight Allotment of Shares Subject 
of Partition How Separation and Partition oan be Effected 
Loss of Share by Limitation Proof of Separation Conversion 
from Hinduism Suit for Partition Partial Partition Account 
Provision for Debts, etc. How made by Court Revenue- 
paying EstatesMortgage of Undivided SharePartition Act, 
1698 Partition by Bevenue Authorities Reunion . . , 325-860 



CHAPTER X. 
PRINCIPLES OF INHERITANCE. 

Definition of Law of Inheritance To what Property it Applies 
Vesting Devesting Heir Succeeds by own Right -Disinherison 
Alteration of Course Heir is Fresh Stock of Descent Nearer 
eicludes more Eemote Female Heirs Succession after Female 
Saooession Ttffcen p&r stvrpes ; when $w copifo Relin<|uish- 
m&nt of Heirship- Exclusion from Inheritance TJncha&tity 
Remarriage Physical DefectsMurder by Heir^-Result of 
Disqualification Stridhan Property Change of Religion- 
Abandonment of Worldly Afiairs , 361-375 



CHAPTER XI, 

ORDER OP INHERITANCE TO MALES ACCORDING 
TO THE MITAKSHARA LAW. 

Connection bfcfcwesn Religion and Law of Inheritance Fixed Rules 
i Did prances between Mitakshara and Bengal Systems -Mitak- 
Bhara Hchool Guiding Principle Classes of Heirs Meaning of 
" Sapinda " ; and of " Samanodaka "Order of Succession 
Sagotra Sapindas Son Illegitimate Son Son's Son Son's 
fcon's Son Widow Daughter Daughter's Son Mother- 
Father Brother Brother's Son Brother's Son's Son Rela- 
tionship of Half Blood Sister and Sister's Son Grandparents 
and their Descendants to the Third Degree Great Grand- 
parents and their Descendants to the Third Degree Remote 
S* 'nda Hehs~Samaiiodakas~jBand7ws-~Who Inherit Kinds 
ASma BmidhusPitri Bandhus Matri Bandhus Female 
Heirs in Bombay In Madras Inheritance on Reunion 
Hermits and Members of Religious Orders Escheat . . 376-416 



CHAPTBR XIX 

TO MALES ACCORDING TO THE 
BENGAL SCHOOL. 

Founded on Spiritual Bmefit-Meaning of Sapfada "- Classes 
of Krato-^*^ of gao- 

*' 417*433 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 

PAGES 

CHAPTER XIII. 
STRIDHAN PROPERTY. 

Meaning Classification Descriptions Modes of Acquisition- 
Power to Deal with Stridhana Gift of Immovable Property 
by Husband to Wife Control by Husband ... 4:34-445 

CHAPTER XIV. 
INHERITANCE TO STRIDHAN PROPERTY. 

Principle Maiden's Property Devolution according to the '* Mitak- 
shara "According to the "Mayukha" According to the 
"Smriti Chandrika " According to the Mithila School Ac- 
cording to the Bengal School Escheat Illegitimate Children 
Dancing-girls, and Prostitutes .,,,,.. 446-4G3 

CHAPTER XV. 

POWERS OF WOMEN- OVER PROPERTY INHERITED 
BY THEM. 

Limited Powers of Female Heirs In Bombay Maiden Daughter 
""Movable Property Will Share on PartitionNature of 
Estate Interference by Court More than One Widow Addi- 
tions Accumulations Unappropriated Income Leases 
Alienation for Life When can Alienate Necessity Consent 
of Reversioners Surrender Powers under Will Poweus given 
by Court Proceedings by or ^ against Restricted Heir ^0ofc> 
promise Sale In Execution of Decree For Arrears of Revenue 464-498 

CHAPTER XVI. 
REVERSIONERS AND THEIR RIGHTS. 

Interest of Reversioners Avoidance of Alienation Suit to Restrain 
Waste Declaratory Decree Limitation Subsequent Rever- 
sioner Rights on Death of Restricted Owner Limitation 
Proof of Necessity Equities Setting Aside Alienation Bights 
of Crown .......... 't 1 



CHAPTER XVII. * 

INHERITANCE TO PRIVATE IMPARTIBLE PROPERTY. 

Principles of Inheritance Mitakshara Law Primogeniture 

Bengal School Sons f ,.. 515-520 

CHAPTER XVIlL 
GIFTS AND WILLS. 
JP&wec oi Gift Making over Posession-*Transfer-^Donations Ttofyrtis, , 



TABtiti OF 



Aofe ^tindu Disposition of Property Act Definition of Will 
&nw o$ Wills Fott&ded on Gifts Subject of Gift or Will 
Testoaafry GapfKjity-~35 > orm of Will Construction Disin- 
feetison Principles ia Tagore Oase ^Whole Interest Passing 
Alteration of Ia3ieritulce Bepugnant Condition Bequest to 
Cnfootn Person To a Class Hindu Transfers and Bequests 
Act, X914 Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916 Religious 
and Charitable Endowments Perpetuities Trusts Life Es- 
tfttefi Accumulations- Hindu Wills Act Probate and Ad- 
ministration ActMalabar Law Oudh Taluqdars" . , . 521-545 



CHAPTER X 
BEL1GIOUB AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTB. 

Object Powers of Court Creation Uncertainty Colourable En- 
dowment Scheme Revocation For Worship of Deity 
Tjeustee or Manager Powers Account Brotherhoods Mutts 
~*~%{QkuKt Powers of Manager Limitation Adverse Posses- 
sionDevolution of Trust Hereditary Eight Alienation 
Partition Suits Civil Procedure Code, &. 92 Removal of 
Manager Statutory Provisions for Superintendence , , 5&3-59G 

597*661 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



A. 

Abaji Gangadhar v. Mukta 

Abasi v, Dunne 217 

Abbaku v. Ammu Shettati 0g 

Abbu v. Kuppammal , 205 

Abdool Kureem (Sheikh) v. Jaun Ali ] 320 

Abdul (Haji) v. Hamid (Haji) 1 24 

Abdul Aziz Khan v. Nirma ..... 370 
Abdul Aziz Khan Sahib v. Appayasami Naicker . . . 265 319 

Abdul Gofur Mandal v. Umakanta Pandit 559 

Abdul Haye v. Nawab Baj ........ 396 

Abdul Karim Sahib z?. Badrudeen Sahib 354 

Abdulla v. Ram Lai ... 499 

Abdur Kahim v. Halimabai 24, 25 

Abhachari v. Bamachendrayya 100, 521 

Abhai Gharan Ghose v. Dasmoni Dasi 2Q 

Abhai Churn Jana v. Mangal Jana $5^ 3^ 41$ 

Abhaychandra Boy Ohovdhry v. Pyari Mohan Guho . . $7&, 273 

Abhesang Tirabhai v. Baisang Fatcsang 484, 487 

Abhirarn Goswami v. Shyama Charan Nandi . . 553, 5C4, 505, 5G6 
Abhoy Churn Ghose v. Attarmoni Dassce , . , .307, 489, 513 

Abilakh Bhagat v. Bhekhi Mahto 374 

Abilak Boy v. Bubbi Boy 333 

Abinas Chandra Paul v. Probodh Chandra Paul 50& 

Abinash Chandra Mazumdar v, Harinath Shaha 165, 170, 501, 502, 506, 507, 

508 

Abraham v. Abraham 23, 24, 25, 137, 350 

Achal Bam (Lai) v. Kazim Husain Khan (Baja) ... . 17 

Aohal Bam v. Udai Partab Addiya Dat Singh . , . . .,,', $18 

Aehhan Kunwar v. Thakur Pas 500,511 

Achhaibar Singh v. Bam Samp Sahu 274 

Achrafclal JeMsandas v. Chimanlal Parbhudas 211 

Achut v. Manjunath , 49^ 

Addoyto Churn Doss v. Woojan Beebee , 208 

Adhar Chandra Chatter jee t. Nobin Chandra Chatterjee . . .251 

Adhibai v. Cursandas Nathu 79, 88, 210 

Adi Kosavan Naidu v. Gurumatha Chetti 307 

Adhirance Narain Coomary v. Shona Malee Pat Mahadai . . 79, 90, 92 
Adi Deo Narain Singh v. Dukharan Singh . . . 349, 502, 504, 50 
Adit Narayan Singh v. Mahabir Prosad Tewari .... $7$; #6 
Adivi Suryaprakasa Bao v. Nidamarty Gangaraju . 
' 



> 



TABLE Ott CASES 

,;. Aimnda Chari 



Adriahappa i\ Gurushidappa ....... oL.\ftO 

Adurmoni Deyi r. Chowdhry Sib Naraiu Kur . 550 

Advocate -General v. Damothar ........ 

. _ - v.Jimbabai ........ ^ 

_ _ r. Karinali Rakinibai .... 240, 241, 535 

- - - i\ Stiangman ........ ^ 

_ ,- ...... i'. Vislivanath Atmaran ...... 547 

....... 368,369,388 



. 

Airhuiv Xuth Mukhopadhya i\ Grish Chunder Mukhopadhya . . . M> 
AiJiuri Ramasarg Sing r. Cochrane ...... 304 ^07 

Au'u Mianu Embrandii r Ti&tnu Enibrandri ..... 5J ^ 

Ahmad ll.ua Khan r Ram Lai ....... 234 

Ahmulbhoy Hubibbhoy i. Ca^umbiioy Alimcdbhoy . .24, 24(> 

Ahollyci Uluu Dubi,i f. Luckco Moncc Dcbia . . ' 4 , 

Aiyyajraii Venkatara-majya /'. Aiyyagan Ramayya . . 301, 350 
Ajabsing i\ Nanabhau Valad Dhan Sing Raul ..... 175 

Ajoy Ram ?'. Girdliarcc ........ ^ . 293 

Ajodhya Puibhad r Mabadeo Purahad .... 24<i, 344, 35- 

A] udhia t\ Ram Sumer llisir ....... 29C, 404 

Akhuy Chunder Bagchi r. Kallapahar Haji . . . 1 15, 117, 140 
Akkanna ?. Vcnkayya ....... ^^ 

A\kmori Srocramulu v. Mullapudi Ramayya ..... 4ys 

Akolu Pada r. SaUaaram ......... ^ 3 

ALurii Suth i. Boreani ......... 37 

AUsluiy Chandra BUattacharya v. Han Dag Gos\vami 16, 350, 414, 417, 428 
ALihi fcoya r. iMussa Koj*a ... .... 523 

A!:iLM[.pa Chctti v. Vellian Chetti ...... 267,280 

ALiLMppa 3tudcihar v, Sivarasundara Mudaliar ..... 573 

Alimt'lu t. Rangananii ........ * 3<U 

Alami i\ ICornu . . . . .299 

Alangamanjori Dabee v. Sonamoni Dabec ..... 534, 543 

Alank Manjan v. Fakir Chand Sarkar ..... 112, 134, 150 

AUuidinoni Dasoa c Gokoolmoni Dassca ...... 427 

All UaMin c Dlurja .......... 533 

Aiinii-Ummal i. Arunauhcllam Filial ...... 328, 329 

All Saheb i'. Slubji .......... 9 

Alladiuoo Dossee (Sreeuiutty) t'. Sreenath Chunder Bosc . . 233 
Aiukmonoe Dabee r. Buuee jSEadhub Chuckcrbutty .... 493 

Alymalumiuuul i\ Vencatoovieu ....... 2C2 

Aiuar Cliaud Kuadu i. Nani Gopal Mukerjee .... 5C7, 568 

Amar Chandra Kundu v. Scbak Chand Chowdhury . .319 

Ainat^ndra Nath Bosc r. Shuradhani Dasi ... , 143 

Anuivudra Xaf h Chatterjee v Kashi Nath Chatterjeo . . . .544 

Amarnath Sah (Lala) p. Achan Kuar (Rani) . . 286, 294, 479, 510 
Auiava t\ Mahadgouda .... 23, 102, 124, 125, 130, 131, 194 

Ambabai i\ Govind ......... 23, 20, 384 

Ambaidas r. Jijibhai .......... 412 

Ambalal r. Rewa (Bai) ......... 442-* 

Ambika Pat v. Sukbmani Kuar ...... 348, 349, 350 

Ambika Partap Singh tv Dwarka Prasad ...... 199 

Aimloo ^%an v. Muhammad Davud Khan Bahadur , . . .594 
Amin Sahib (Syed) r. Ibrain Sahib ....... 592 

Amir frmJi i. Moazzum Alj Khan . 2(19 



I 1 ABLE OF CASBS Cl'i'JbJD. XV 



u. Ketharauiayj an . UU 9 U7, 118*528 

Amjad Ali v. Moniram Kalita ....... . 4S 5 

Ammakannu v. Appu ..... , oj,; 2 ](\ 

Ammanga v. Upadorai Patter ...... ' 240 

Amraayee i\ Yalumalai ..... 7j^ 

Ammur Singh v. Murdun Siiigh ........ 5^ 

Amolak Ram v. Chandan Sing ....... 302 JJQI 

Amrit (Bai) v. Manik (Bai) ....... '7^ 3,-^ 

Amnta Kumari Bebi v. Lakhi Narayan Chucker butty . 377, 398, 402,' J IR, 

420 
Amnta Lai Bagchi i. Jafcindra Nath Chowdhry ..... l>00 

Amnta Lai Mitter v. Manick Lai Mullick ... 90, 03, 333, 33 (> 

Ami-it Bhar v. Bindesri Prasad ...... \ ' 50fl| 510 

Amrit Nath Chowdhry v. Gauri Nath Chowdhry . . . , 28, 2 i) 
Axnrito Lall Butt v. Surnomoni Dasi .,..., 3&>, 5 12 
- v. Surnomoye Basi .... H3, 110. 117, 5*2 

Amulya Charan Seal y. Kali Das Sen ...... . \w 

Ananda Bibee v. Nownit Lai ...... 3iji ? \\^\ 9 3^5 

Anand Chandra Ghosc v. Picin Kisto Dutt ..... 323, 3;u 

\iiandi r. Han Suba Pai ........ 181, ;}00 

Anandibai i. Han Suba Pai ....... 2*22, 3 1-,} 

- - v. Kashibai ..... 126, 130, 150, 157, lot 

- i\ Kajaram Chintainan Pethc ..,.. 471 
Anandrao Gunputrao i'. Vasantrao Madhavrao ..... 2">7 

Anandrao Vinayak v. Administrator- General of Bombay . . 528, r>34 
Anandrav Bhikaji Phadke v. Shankar l)aji Charya . . . 5, 7, 8 
Anandrav Sivaji v. Ganesh Eshvant Bokil ...... 175 

Ananta v. Ramabai .......... 372 

Ananta Balacharya v, Damodhar Makund . . . . , .347 

Anantanarayana Ayyar v. Kuttalam Pillai ..... 589, 500 

Anantanarayana Iyer i\ Savithn Ammal ...... 35G 

Ananfcha Tirtha Chariar v. Nagainuthu Ambalagarcn . . , 533, 5-10 
Ananthaya v. Vishnu ......... 209 

Anant Ram v. Channu Lai ...... 239, 207, 275 

Anant Raima v v. Gopal Balvant . . . , . . . 23 G 
Anant Singh (Thakur) v. Durga Singh (Thakur) .... 32, 300 

Anath Nath Bey v. Mackintosh ........ 325 

Angamathu Pillai v. Kolandavelu Pillai ..... .279 

Anganamal v. Venkata Reddy ........ 309 

Annada Kumar Roy v. Indra Bhusan Mukhopadhya . . . 490, 491 
Annaji Batfcatraya v. Chandrabai ....... 413 

Annaji Raghunath Gosavi v. Narayan Sitaram ..... 58 1 

Annaji Eau v. Ragnbai ......... 9 

Annamalai Chctty r. Murugasa Chetty ...... 270 

Annammah v. Mabbu Bali Rcddy . . . 130, 150, 189, 194, 190, 107 
Annapurni Nachiar v. Forbes ....... 181,182 

Annapurni Nachiar (Ram) c. fc5w ammatha Chettiar .... 84 

Annasami Pillai i\ Ramakribhna Mudaliar . . . 570, 571, 574, 594 
Annayan v. Chinnan ......... 383 

Annoda Churn Roy i' Rally Cooinar Roy ...... 268 

Annundo Mohun Roy i\ Lamb ........ 255 

Anonymous .......... 76, 129 

Anooragee Kooer (Mussainut) i\ Bhugobutty Kooer ... 320 
Anpurnabai v. Durgapa- Mahalapa Kaik ...... 2S7 



'JCABLE OF CASKS COTS), 



Autajit>.Dattaji ..... .' ' * ' 

Anund Chtmder Mookerjee v. Tcetooram Chatterjee . . 427 

Anund Chund Rai v. Kishen Mohun Bunoja .... 299,523 

Vnund Chundra Mundul v. Nilmony Jourdar ..... 47o 

Wild Kocr (Rani) u Court of Wards . . . 164,165,506,507 
Anund Mohun Paul Chowdhry t>. Shamasoundery (Sreeinutty) . . 248 
Auundee Koomvur (Mussumat) v. Khedoo Lai ..... 349 

Ammdffloyeo Chowdhoorayan r. Sheebchunder Boy .... 168 

Aixundmoyee Chowdhrain v. Boykantnath Roy . . . 342, 575, 576 
Ammdomohey Dossee v. Doe dem East India Company . . .532 
Anundo Rai i\ Kali Prosad Singh ....... 324 

AnjabatvDaji .... ...... 165 

Apaji C'iiinttiman Derdhar v. Gangabai ...... SO 

A]ia]i Xarliai KialLarni v. Ramchandra Ravji Kulkarni . . 32G, 327 
A]i]>aji Bapuji r. Kcshav Shamrav ....... 324 

Appandai Vathiyar v. Bagubali Mudaliyar .... 378, 401, 405 

Appa Filial v. Eunga Filial ........ 348 

Appasami v. Nagappa ......... 669 

Appaya v. Fadappa .......... 5 > 7 

Appovicr v. Rama Subba Aiyan .... 238, 2GC, 345, 346, 347 

A. F. Rajerav Chandrararao v. Nanarav Krishna Jahajirdar ... 84 
Arayalprath Kunhi Pocker v. Kanthilath Ahmad Kuti . . . .330 

Arthakam Srinivasa. Dikshatulu v. Udayagiii Anantha Charlu . . 7 
Ariabudra v. Dorasami ........ 310, 319 

Aiiyaputri r. Alaiuelu ......... 328 

Armugam Filial v. Sabapatlri Padiachi . ..... 283 

Ainackcllum Fillay i\ lyasawmy Fillay ...... 135 

Arrutli ^lisscr v. Juggurnatli Indraswanico ...... 5C3 

Aruinuga ^Eudah v. Viraraghara Mudali fc ..... 60 

Arumugam v. Tulukanam ........ 36, 71 

Amnachala Chetti o, Munisami Mudali ...... 315 

Aninachala Filial v. Vythialiaga Mudaliyar ...... 267 

Arunagiri Mudali v. Ranganayaki Ammal ...... 462 

Arundadi Animal i\ Kuppammal ...... 102, 120 

Asad Ali Mollah v. Haidur Ali ....... 84,98 

Abhabai v. Tyeb Haji Rahimtulla (Haji) ...... 452 

Ashanullah v. Kali Kinkur Kur ........ 342 

Asharam Sadhani v. Chandi Churn Mukerjee ..... 479 

Asliarfi Kunwar v. Rup Chanel ..... 110, 135, 145, 172 

Asligar All v. Delroos Begum ........ 585 

Ashutosh Banerjee v. Lukhimoni Debia ...... 98 

Aslmtosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee .... 533, 539, 549 

Asinia Kzishna Deb (Kumara) v. Kumara Krishna Deb (Kuniara) . . 540 
Abita Mohun Ghosh Moulik v. Nerode Mohun Ghosh Mouhk 22, 110, 111, 153, 

185, 188 
Assur Furshotam v. Ratanbai ...... 134, 166, 167 

Asud Ali Khan (Sheikh) v.Akbar Ali Khan ..... 234 

Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh ...... 243, 253, 258 

Athavulla i?. Gouso .......... 547 

Atmaram y. Madho Rao ....... 153, 154, 155 

Atram (Bai) v. Deep Sing Baria Thakor ...... 167 

Attorney General v. Brodie ........ 579 

Atul Krishna Sircar % Sanyasi Churn Sircar ..... 442 

Audhkoomari v. Chandra Dai . , ..... 387, 449 



TABLE OF OASES CITED, 



PAGE 

Aulim Chund Dhur v. Bejai Govind Burrall ..... 353 

Aumirtolall Bose v. Rajonee Kant Mitfcer ...... 425 

Aunjona Dasi v. Prahlad Chandra Ghoso ..... 46, 51, 01 

Authikcsavulu Chetty v. Ramanujam Chetty . . 51, GO, 63, 450 

Avayambal v, Kamalambal ........ 250 

Awad Sarju Prasad Singh, v. Sita Ram Singh ..... 329 

Ayabutoe (Mussummaut) v. Raj Kishen Sahoo ..... 361 

Ayatunnessa Bibi v. Kulfu Khalifa ....... 570 

Ayyadori Pillai v. Solai Aminal ........ 168 

Ayyappa v. Venkata Krishnamarazu . ...... 268 

Ayyavu Muppanar v. Niladatchi Aminal ..... 187, 235 

Azimunnissa Begum v. Pale * ..... 9 



B. 

Baba v, Timma 285, 303 

Babaji v. Bala]i Ganosh 467 

v. Dhuri 283 

Babaji Akobar v. Dathu Laxman .... 222, 234, 350, 352 

Babaj i Jivaji v. Bliagirthibai 138 

Babaji Lakshman v. Vasudey Vinayak 300 

Babaji Mahadaji z;. Krishnaji Dcvji 290 

Babaji Parahram v. Kashibai 347,350,351 

Babajirao v. Luxnaandaa 555., 557, 558 

Babashet v. Jirshet 350 

Baboo Ram v. Gajadhur Singh 30G 

Babu v. Bhikaji 51 

Babu Anaji v. Ratuoji Krishnarav .... 157,190,197,500 
Babu Lai v. Nanku Ram .... 377,378,379,391,398,400 

Babu Singh v. Bihari Lai 310,311 

Bachobi v. Makhan Lai 2 *^ 

Bachcho Kuwar v, Dharam Das 2 &* 

Bachha Jha v. Jugmon Jha 451, 4=53, <i5(>, 460 

BacMraju v. Venkatappadu 406 

Bachoo Hurkisondas v. I^ankorobai . . 116, 125, 198, 2G3, 264, 284, 329 

Bada v. Husso Bhai 262 

Badamoo Kooer v, Wazeer Sing 35 ^ 

Badaruth Towary v. Jagurnath Dass 3i{ > 

Badratanessa Bibee v. Ambika Charan Ghose *> u 

Badri Prasad v. Madan Lai 309 

Badri Roy v. Bhugwat Narain Dobey 333 

Badul Singh v, CKutterdharee Singh ^ 

Bahadur Singh v. Mohar Singh 107 > 501 

Baiji (Bai) v. Santok Bai ^ 

Baijnath v. Manatee ; ^ 

Baijnath Prasad Singh 2J.TOJ Bali Singh . . . 252,204,348,518 

JBaijun Dooboy v. Brij Bhookun Lall Awusti 490 

Baikanta Chandra Roy Chowdhury v. Kali Oharan Roy Chowdhury . 169 

Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue 299 

Bainee Singh w, Bhurth Singh ^ 

Baisnab Chandra De v. Ramdhon Bhor *' 

BaisnaY Charan Das Bafragi . Kishore Dass Mohanta . , 571 
Baisni ^ Rup Singh .,,,*' 87a bb 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Bajaba v. Trimbak Vishvanath. ........ 252 

Bajrangi Singh 0. Manokarnika Bakhsh Sing . . 388, 486, 487, 488 
Bakhtawar v. Bhagwana ........ 490 > 50G 

Bakubaiv.Manchhabai ..... 371,372,387,388,449 

Bala v. Balaji ........... 285 

Balabux Ladlmram v. Rukhmabai ..... 222, 359, 300 

Balaji v. Datto ........... 15 

277 



Balaji Baikaji Pinge v. Gopal ........ 200 

Balakrishna Iyer v. Muthusami Iyer . ...... 272 

Balamma P. Palbyya ...... 362,303,413,414 

Balaraini Reddi (Sivada) v. Pcra Ecddi (Sivada) ..... 100 

Balaram Bliaskarji i\ Ramchandra Bhaskarji . . 255, 259, 353, 354 
Balbhadra v. Bhavani ......... 502 

Mbhadhar r. Bislieshar ......... 300 

Baldeo Das v. Sham Lai ........ 220,278 

Baldcodas v, Manekchand . . ....... 275 

Baldeo Das Agarwalla v. Mohainaya Persad ..... 51 

Baldeo Sahai v. Jumna Kunwar ........ 52 

Baldeo Singh v. Mathura Kunwar ....... 309 

Baldeo Sonar v. Mobarak Ali Khan . . . 274, 276, 278, 279, 280 
Bal Gangadhar Tjilak v. Shrjnivas Pandit (Shri) . . . 113,153,154 
Balgir v. Dhondgir ....... . .187 

Balgobind v. Bamhuniar ........ 500, 507 

Balgobind Das v. Naram Lai ...... 301, 302, 303 

Bal Gobind Bam v. Hirusraneo ........ 500 

Balgovind Lall v. Rampertab Singh ....... 371 

Balgovinda (Musst) v. Lai Buhadoor ....... 374 

Bali Panda v. Jadumoney Santra ...... 55C, 557 

Balkcaen Lai r. Ohoudhuri Tapesur Singh ...... 316 

BalkiMahapatrav. Brojobasi Panda ....... 281 

Balkishen (Rai) v. Sitaram (Rai) ...... 299,300 

Balkishen Das v. Ram Narain Sahu . , . 330, 345, 340, 347, 300 
Balkrishna i. Janardana ......... 321 

Ballo-ishna Babaji v. Hari Govind ....... 

3ialkrishna Bapuji Apte v. Lakshman Dinkar . . . . 19, 390 

Balkrishna Sakharam v. Moro Krishna Dabholkar . . . 207^ 208 
Balkrishna Trimbak Tendulkar v. Savitribai . . 348, 305, 382, 385 
Balkrislina Vithal v. Hari Shankar ....... 352 

Balmakund i. Bhagwan Das ,,.! 522 

- v. Janki .......... 217 

Balusami Pandithar *. Narayana Rau . 377/378, 391, 403, 405, 418 

Ealvant Santaram v. Babaji ...... 293 

Balvantrav v. Pursliotam ....".". | "" 470 

Balvautrav Bhaskar v. Bayabai - * I ! ! ! [ " 143 
Balwanfcrao v. Ramkrishna !*'*" 307 
Balwant Singh (Raja) . Clancy ...."* 2 *98 ^10 122 

Balwant Singh (Rao) ,. Kiahori (Rani) . . '. \ 3 U 2 

BalvadruSamant Singh (Chowdhnry) v . Bimbadhar Roy . . ' ' 260 ' 
Bama Soonduree Dossee v. Anund Moyeo Dossce ..... 303 

" " - - - v. Bama Soonduroe Dossee . . , * 506 
Samundoss Mookerjea v. Tarinee (Mussamut) . 133, 179 193 199 404 
Banalata Dasi ft Monmotha Nath Goswami . ' ' * *' 

"'' * 



I 1 \TU.K i>F rASfi*; OWL XIX 



Baudam StlUh r. Bandaui Maha Laksluny , Q 

Bando Subrao Jammii r Jambu Tatnappu Aduku * . , 
Baiidhn Prasad r DhirajiKuar ....,. 

Bani'o JMadhub Ghoso <' Thakoor Duas Muiulul . . , . 
Banoe Madhub Mookorjoo r. Bliucrajobutty Ohnm Bauer jut . . .221 
Banco Pen-had (Baboo) i\ Abclool H\e (Moonahoo Syud) 15<>, ir>2, ir>;j 

Banga Chandra Dhur "Biswas i\ Jagat Kishore Acharjya CJhowdhun S7, 2i<>, 

510 
Bangarn Animal r. YijayamaeM Roddiar . . . . . *s 

Bank o EngUnd r Yafljhano ...... 4 . TilS 

B,ink of Hmdutnn ?% Ahmodbhai Haubhai ...... ."2 

-- ;< Premchand ..... , 5JJ 

Bauuoo 2'- Kashce Ram ........ 222, 2.V5 

Bansidhar ?'. Ganoshi . . . . . t . . . ,*0t 

Banymodht Ghose z 1 . Juggoclumba Dossec ...... 3>2 

Bapi (Bai) t. Jamnadas Hathisani? ....... ,5j!j 

Bapuji Jagannath . , . . . . . . . .327 

Bapuji Lakshman i Pandurang ....... JJU 9 37-4 

Barada Prasad Pal r. Rama Pati Pal ....... 113 

Barabi Dcbi f D^bkarnini Dcbi ........ 334 

Baroilly, Collector of, r. Xuricn Bay (Muast.) ..... H 

Baroda Cliaran Dutt v. Hemlata Dassi ...... 574 

Baroda Kanta Chattopadhya r. Jatiudra Narain 11oj r ... * 11)7 
Barot Naran r. Barot Jesang ....... .109 

Barsati v. Chamru .......... <J 

Basa Mai i\ Maharaj Singh ..... - . .281 

Basangavda i\ Basangavda ....... .413 

Basanta Kumari Dassj-a (Srcemutty) r. Mohcsh Chandra fcJhaha . . 231 
Basanta Kumari Debi r. Kamikshya Ivuuiari Debi . 437, 441, 45$, 3JW 
Basanta Kumar Singha />. Jogendra Nath Singlia ..... 300 

Baaappa v. Rayava .......... 3"*> 

Basava i\ Lmgangauda ...... 32, 183, 101, 1UJ 

Basdeo r. Ghanb Das ......... 5'.S 

- nGopal .......... 1W 

Bashettiappa v. Shivlingappa ...... 13*, US, 13t 

Baso Kooer y. Hurry Dass ........ 3os 

Basoo Camummah i\ Basoo Ohinna Vencatasa . 103, 13 

Basoo Dhul v. Kishcn Ghunder Goer Gosaiu ..... 54!^ 

Bata Krishna Naik v. Chintamam Naik ..... 220, 223 

Battas Knar (Musst.) v. Lachman Singh ..... 144, 145 

Bawa Misscrn Bishen Prokash Narofn Singh ..... 530 

Bawani Ghulam v. Deo Raj Kuari ....... 2U'i 

Bawani Sankara Pandit v. Ambabay Ammal .... 2o3, 204 

Bayabai,.Bala ...... 19,124,123,150133 

Bccha v. Mothina ......... /0 

Bccharam Banorjce r. Thakoormonee Dubia (Srccmuttoe) . . - 2b^ 
Bcchur Bhugwan v. Lukinee (Baee) ...... - * 

Beeby v. Kshitish Chandra Acharya ...... 333, o^> 

' Boem Churn Sen v. Heeralol! Seal ...... 113, l US 

Boer Chunder Manikkya r. Nobodcep Chundcr Deb Burinono (Raj 

Beer Kls^oro Suhyc Singh "(Baboo) r. Hur Bullnb Narain Singh (Baboo) 

220, vJO/j oi> 

Beer No-rain Sircar v. Teon Co\?rco ISfundec ..... 



I \BL13 Off CARES CITED, 

PAGE 

VH rr IVr-sluKl ? . Poorga Pcrahad ...... 307 

ii. T JVrtajj Sahoc (Baboo) ?<. K.ijoiwlor Portab Sahee (Maharajah) 30, 251, 250, 

520, 527 
"Mi we LrU (Mia) r. Mudho Pershad (Lalla) .... 235, 257 

iirhib'e LrllRoyr. Lall ( 1 hundpr Hoy 251 

IVharilnl ". Madhohl Ahir 490 

IVhfi'iL-Uf'. ShibLal 192,193 

IMuriLiH Rnjbai (Bai) 84,89 

J5 hari Lai Luha 4*. Kailas Chuurl Laha 189, 3<>2 

i' >h,uy Liil Mohurw ar > . Mahdo Lall Shir Oyawal . . . 502, 503 

U lurv Lill S,muyal r. Juc^o Molnm Oossain 444 

V ri I H'hauiir Singh L-. Bhupiiidar Bahadur Singh .... 244 

Vj ovKr.-Imi flJirv-h r. A^mlo^i OJxoh 224 

*> h-K^r ^Mii^aniut) ? 'jhowMuco Uaksh (lUboo) , . . 221,349 
i*' :3i!i D.^soo . 3ti)!i>iu Do-co ....... 274 

}1< .uros Miharajah of, i\ Puimlannar Mi&Ir 312 

IVuee pprshad ?. Moliabhoodhy (lliiasamui) 237 

Dt-ni Madho r. Basdoo Patak 320 

1> 'i Paishad r. Puran Chaud 242, 316, 319 

H "it P^rsharl ?\ Parbati Kocr 318,319 

IVni Ptiim r. Man Singh 290 

K'pin 1?' hari Bandopadlu-a /. Brojonath Mookhopadhya. . . 183,196 
13oni,i Behari iloduck y Lall ilohun Chaftopadln-a . . . .331 
IVj tin Biliary Das Boira^i t\ Atul Krishna Dj,3 Bairagi ... 62 

U^pin Bt'harv Kuntlu t,. Durga Cliaran Banorji 4SS 

13oresford i. Ramasubba 205, 527 

BtTo^ah ^Eovo (Mt) v. Xubobi^sen Roy 303 

K saut r. Xarayaniah 213,216 

Utti Kurnuir c. Janki Kun war 333 

EhapcabAii Ramanuj Das (Mohuut) i\ Roghuniindun Ramanuj Das 

(Mohunt) 110,229,372 

lihacrabati Barmanya i\ Kalicharan Singh .... 240, 535, 541 
Bha'jjabati Dcisi (Srimati) e. Kanailal flitter .... 79, 92 
Bha^abati Kocr i . Sahudra Koor .... 20, 474, 475, 476 
Uhagat M,il Sahu i' Abdul Karim (Sk) . . . . * 308,' 31 1 

Bliiigavatamma >% Pampanna Gaud 199 477 

IJJwgawanDas r. BalgobindSing 1 28 

Dhagbut Pfcrehad r. Girja Kocr (Mussumat) 280, 310, 311, 310, 317, 319, 320, 

321 
Blw-rbutti Dace (Mussumat) r. Bholanath Thakoor (Chowdhry) . 475 539 

Biugjrathie. Anantha Cliaria 84,89,90*321 

'. Jokhu Ram Upadhia ... ' 53* ofiO 

Bhagirathi Ifiar r. Shoobhik [ ' 30 9 

Bludrtlnbai v. 3o,ya, ." ! ! 411 449 

~ r. Kahnujirav 388,453,467^470 

i\ Radhabai .... i QO i < i 

BhagabaittTukaram ....!"'" 357 

Bhagvand^TejmaURainial . . . 23,29,32/102,1*13,136,145 

Bhagvan Dullabh v. Kala Shankar 59? - 

Bliagwan Koer (Rani) r. Jogendra Chandra Bosc . . ! * 23 24 545 
Bhagwan Singh r. Bhagwan Singh . 13, 17, 32, 139, 140, 141/142, 144 

Lluuyvranta r. Sukhi 167 170 50 i w* 

Bhagwan Vithoba n Warnbai ... ' '' ?J f 5?n 

Bhagwat r. Xirmthl ..,..","!! .482 



TABLE OF CASTJS 01TED. 



. (Joiirikumvar ........ ";jj ( j 

Bhagwat .Dayal Singh (Raja Rai) u. Djbi Ddyal Sa.hu . . iyj), 311, 512 
Bhagwat Pershad r. Murari Lall ..... 1(5 3 } 17^ ^j 

Bhagwat Sahai v. Bcpin Bohari Mittor ...... ^5 

Bhaiaji Thaknr r Jliamla Dasa ........ jj j j. 

Bhairo i. Parmeshri Dayal ........ jg 

Bhaiya Rabidat Singh y. Indar Kunwar (Maharani) . . 114, 150, is> 
Bhala Nahaiia r. Parbhu Hari ..... 102, 184, 47J, J72 

Bhana r Chindhu .......... 370 

Bhana Govind Guravi ?'. Vithoji Latloji Guravi ..... 234 

Bhaoni v. Alaharaj Singh ........ 5r>, 382 

Bharmangavda ?'. Rudrapgavda ...... 405, 4.^ 407 

Bharmawa ?'. Saugappa ......... 137 

Bhartpur State v. Gopal Dei ....... 89, 92, 04 

Bhaskari Kasavarayudu v. Bhaskaram Ohalapatirayudu . . . 2(3!) 
Bhaskar Parshotam v Saras vatibai ...... 522,521 

Bhaskar Tiimbak Acharya ?\ Mahadev Rainji . . . 4U5 S i07, 4bl 
Bhasker Buchajee v. Narro Raghunath ..... 120, 150 

Bhasker Tatya Shob v Yijalal Nathu ....... 277 

Bhau v. Raghunath Krhlina Gurav . . . 441, 443, 450, 4(37, 1G8 

Bhau Babaji v. Gopala Mahipati ....... 482 

Bhaudixit r. Ishwardixifc ......... 10i) 

Bhawani v. Mahtab Kuar ......... 308 

Bhawani Ghulam v Deo Raj Kuari ....... 518 

Bhawani Kunwar v. Himmat Bahadur ...... i70 

Bhawul Saliu v. Baij Nath Portab Narain Singh ..... 277 

Bheoloo (Mussuinmaut) v. Phool Chund ...... 87, 0<> 

Bhoeru Ram Chuckcrbutty ?;. Hureo Kishore Roy . . , . SOS 
Bheknarain Singh v. Jarnik Singh ...... 2U4, 309 

Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal ..... 104, 50(.i, 507 

Bhikaji Rainchandra Oke r. Yashvantrav Shripat IChopkar . . . 310 
Bhikam Das r. Pura .......... 81 

Bhiku v. Pattu ........... 301 

Bhikuo Koor (Musst.) y. Ohamola Koer ..... 214,215 

Bhikya v. Babu .......... 388 

Bhimabai v. Tayappa Murarao ........ 193 

Bhimacharya v. Ramacharya ........ 450 

Bhimana Gadu v. Tayappah ........ 100 

Bhimappa v. Basawa . . . . . .197 

Bhimaraddi v. Bhaskar ........ 483, 510 

Bhima, Rout v. Dasarathi Doss ...... 587, 589, 591 

Bhimawa v. Sangawa ......... US 

Bhimul Doss v. Choonee Lall ....... 230, 339 

Bhirgu Nath Chaube v. Narsingh Tiwari ...... 307 

Bhivrav v. Sitaram .......... 235 

Bhoba Taritii Debya v. Peary Lall Sanyal . . . 441, 443, 533, 533 
Bhogaraju Yenkatraraa Jogiraju v. Addepalli S^shayya 477, 483, 494, 495, 300 
^hojahari Pal v. Ram Lai Das ........ 3i> 7 

Bhoje Maliadev Parab ?'. Gangabai ....... $ 

Bholanath v. Ghasi Rani ......... 32 $ 

Bholanath Khettry v. Kartick Kisson Das Khettry . . 304, 305, 311 
Bholanath Mahta v. Ajoodhia Persad Sookul . . 220, 221, 250, 257, 3J58 
Bholanath Race v. Sabitra (Mussummaut) ...... %J* 

Bhola Nath Roy r. Rakhnl Dass Mukorji ...... 42i> 



i'ABMfl OF OAB6 CITED, 

PAGE 

Bholanath Thakoor (Chowdhty) . Bhagabatti Doyi (Musst) . . .475 
BkoubuuuBsuTOO Dubia P. Goureo Doss Turkopunclianun . .110, 372 
Bhoobun Mokinoe Dobj a r. Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry . . 541, 542 
Bhoobtm Mohun Bancrjor* r. Muddun Mohun Sing .... 404 

Bhoobimmoyee Debia ?'. Ramkfahore Acharj Ohowdhry 112, 130, 131, 

140, 183, 194, 190, 197, 200, 530 

r>honlmnmoyee Debin Ohowlhrain >'. "Ramkksow Acharj Ohowdhry 85, 224, 

334 
rhoop Singh ?'. Phool Kowcr (Mussumat) ...... 336 

Bhoornn Koer plusaniut) v. Sahebzadee ..... 289, 294 

r.lwwani rroRhad Rhahu r. Juggemath Shahu . , 271, 272, 344, 353 
Biimuia (Muamut) \ RoopKiskoic ..... 291,310,317 

lih. \rubchundpr Itoss r. Madhub Chundcr Paramanic .... 75 

ii"niwif\saii Dt'bi r. XilkomnlLahiri .... 194,195,198 

JSJiuban Mohim Dai i\ Ciajnlal&hmi Belu ..... 510,511 

r>huL r Kol>utty Prusnnno Sen r. Cooroo Prosonno Sen 529, 539, 541. 548, 552, 

556, 557 

BhuLrobutty Da} ec (Hussamut) r. Chowdhry Bholanath Thakoor . . 180 
Bhujobutty Misraiu v. Doraun Misscr ...,,, 221 

Bhiuvi an Chundcr Bose r. Hindoo Bashince Dassco .... 88 

Bhutan Dass v. Luchmce Xarain ....... 492 

Bhug\van<leonBooboy . Myna Bace . . . 16,387,439,464,405,401) 
IHiujanga Rau r Kamayamma ....... 442, 445 

Bhujaiijjrav ? Malojirav ......... 519 

Bhujjun Lall r. Cya Pershad ........ 374 

Bhupal Ham i\ Lachma Kuar ........ 491 

Bhupaf i Xath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lai Moitra . . 539, 551, 555, 556 
BliuiM nOra Krishna Ghosc v. Amarendra Natli Dcy . . 183, 185, 197 
BhujM-ndioKarayan Dutt ?*. Nemye Chanrl Mondul .... 287 

Bhup Singh v. Lachman Kunwar ....... 82 

JMiyrobee Dossco i\ NubMssen Bhoso ...... 3fi4, 427 

Bh}Toochund Rai v. Russooiminee ...... 339, 424 

Bhyrub Mundul p. Gungarara Bonnerjeo ...... 208 

Biflya Prosad r. Bhupnarain ....... 314, 322 

Bihari Lai v. Dand Husain ........ 49^ 

Bijoy Chand Mahatab v. Kali Poda Chatterjee ..... 550 

Bijoy Kcshub Roy Bahadoor (Koonwar) r. Shama Soonduree Dossoo . 299 
Biioy OopaUtukerji r. Nil Katan Mukerji ..... 476,486 

- - - r. Krishna Mahishi Debi (Srimati) , 476, 486, 509 
v ' Crirendra Nath Mukerji . . . 485, 487, 488 



. , , 

y Krishna Karmakar v. Ranjit Lai Karmakar . , . .119 
Bijya Diboh (Mussuuiniaut) i. Unpoorna (Mussummaut) . . . 466 
Bika Singh v Lochman Singh . . . . . . , .319 

BJash Koonwar (IMussamut) r. Bha\\anee Buksh Narain (Baboo) *. ! 221 
BiJaso r. Dina Nath ......... 333> 33G 

- v. Munnilal .......... ^ 

Bimala Debi (Srimati) v. Tarasundari Debi (Srimati} .'!!". 276 
Bimola (Sreemutty) v. Dangoo Kansareo ... 425 

Bmda v KaunsiUa ....... 65,67,68,71,72 

Jjindaji Laxuman Triputikar v. Mathurabai .... 270 271 

Bindoo Bashinee Debee v. Pearee Mohmi Bose . ,' ." ' 75*255 
Bmdoo Bassinee Dossee i\ BoUe Chand Sett ..... '473 

Bmode Koomaree Dabee v, Purdhan Gopal ahee . . ! 387, 425, 448 
Bipro Prosad Myrce r. Kcnae Payee . 25 4 553 



TABLE OF OASES CITED , 

PAGE 
Birajun Kour v. Luchini Narain Mahata * . . 243, 170 

Bircshur Das Doy u. Kamal Kumar Dalt 491, 49(> 

Bireswar Mookorji v. Ardha Ghundcr Roy Chowdhry . . Ill), 131, 20 i 
Birj Lai (Lala) v. Inda Kunwar (Musammat) . . . 2', Mi, 470, 510 
Bisheshar Alwi ??. Dukharan Ahir . . , . , , 4(>5 

Biru v. Khandu 411 

Bishambhar Das v. Drigbijai Singh 508 

Biskambhar Nath v. Fateh Lai t 273 

Vm gheo Narain 273 

Bishambhur Naik v. Sudashoeb Mohapattor . , . 284, 288, 281) 

Bishcn Chand (Rai) v. Asmaida Kcwr . . . 240, 322, 32G, 526, 533 
Bishen Ohand Basawufc v Nadir Hossoin (Sycd) . , . . .507 
Bishen Perkash Naraia Singh (Raja) v. Bawa Missor , 241) 

Bishcnpirea Muneo v. Soogunda (Ranee) 13 

Bisheshar Ahir v. Dukharan Ahir 405 

Bisheshar Das v. Ram Prasad 230 

Bisheshur v. JMata Gholani t>4 

Bishnath Singh (Rajah) i\ Earn Churn Mujmoadar . . , .102 
Bissossur Chuokorbutty v. Pvam Joy Mojoomdar .... 171, 470 

v. Ssutul Ghuudor Cliuukorbutty , . . 232 

Bissossur ,all Sahoo o. Luchmessur Singh (Maharajah) . . 254, 279, 497 
Bissonath Chundor v. Bamasoondcry Doasee (Srccmutty) , . . 520 
Bissonath Dinda o. Dayaram Jana . . . . .514 

Bissumbhur Sircar v. Soorodhuny Dossee .221 

Bissuram Koiree v. Tho Empress 37, 37 

Bistobohari Sahoy v. Biajnath Prasad (Lala) . 497, 302 

Bistoo Pcrshad Burral v. Radha Soondor Nath . 430, 460 

Bistooprca Patmohadea (Ranee) v. Vasoodeb Dull Bcwartco Patnaik 176, 177, 

510 

Biswambhar LJU! (Lala) v. Raj'aram 232 

Bis wanath Chandra v. Khantomani Dasi ..... 471,474 
Biswanath Pershad Mahta v. Jagdip Narain Singh . 282, 287, 297, 314, 321 

Bithal Das v. Nand Kishoro . " 299,300 

Bobbili, Maharajah of, v. Venkataramanjulu Naidu . . . ,302 

Vt Zamindar of Chuncli 492 

Bodhnarain Singh (Baboo) v. Omrao Singh (Baboo) , . . 371, 373 

Bodhrao Hunmont v. Nursing Rao 2(U 

Bodh Singh Doodhooria v. Gunesh Chunder Sen , . 221, 222, 240, 255 

Boidya Nath Sott v. Durga Charan Basak 425 

Bolakeo Sahoo v. Court of Wards 252, 253 

Bombay, Government of, v. Ganga ^ 

Bona Kooree (Mussamat) v. Boolee Singh (Baboo) . . . 233, 246 

Bool Chand Kalta v. Janokee (Mussamut) 61 S 00 

Boologam v. Swornam 249 25 

Booniadi Lall (Bukshee) v. Dewkee Nundun I^all (Bukshee) . 240, 254 

Brahmadeo Narayan v. Harjan Singh 50 

Brahmamoyi Chowdhurain (Srimati) v. Gopi Mohan Chowdhury . . 232 

Brahmappa v. Papanna f 51 

Braja Bhukan Lai Ahusti v. Bichan Dobi 371 

Brajakishor Mitfcer Mazumdar v. Radha Gobind Dutt .... 43-. 

Braja Kishora w. Kuldana Devi 442 

Braja Lai Sen v. Jiban Kri 8 hna Roy . . 421,422,426,431,494,490,498 

Brajanath Baisakh v. Matilal Baisakh 481> tor 

Brajanath Dcy Sirkar v. Anandamayi Dasi 30 



XV \ TABLE OF CASES CITED, 

TAGE 

liraniamuji Dasi (Srimati) r. Jagea Chandra Dutt . . . 803, 536 
I J ra n amind Mahunty r. Chowdhry Krishna Chum Putnaik . , .188 

ISuwlon P. Rundarabni '. . * .167 

Itolbhouknnjcv Muharaj (Sree) v Gokoolutsaojco Muharaj . * 129, 147 
l';jj Iivlar Itoliadur Rm<Ji r. Janki Koer (Rancc) . . . 251, 430, 414 

l>ij Ltl >\ Sjraj Bikr<i!ii Singh 442, 510 

i? i,mi:.ha Singh r. Bidya Prasad Singh 311, 322 

15- : -i, i ] xnuli ^Slipod-vn Singh 271,346,528 

!X:iI i bun ChamKi Kurmokar r. Ghundia Kurmokar . . .47, 50, 60 
IJ'hdi ChowJhrai'i v Riidluoo, t'howlhrain . . . 78,79,90,91 
!',. i,I L DA!,V Choudhrnin r. Pwiroc Lall Chowdhry . . . .499 

i i, ii..ia , m.i -. Rad'iamani 56, 50, 227, 382, 383 

I), u XI-IP * H Daav^ ' . Sr^oiutli Bose . . . 161, 167, 172, 367, 514 

U . .m.YriDu^t.Hut^oHDo'S 553,576,577 

U. ,im:i him Alyr^v f U illr Koomarec 433 

IS^joraoIum (rho^-e \ Lucn7iiua fcJmgh Thikoor 284 

IVojo Mohun Thakoor '. Gouroo Pcishad Ghowdry . . . 303, 3U7 
y D^bia (Jtaliaran^o) r, Luchniee Koonvroicc (Kancc) 548, 549, 

553 

Sen 48,61 

n ' Kim Knaa?f* Du+t ........ 295 

Li Riimavya '*. Jagapathi 4(39 

rfmjh r. Liltu Singh 378,381,39-2,391 

M-'lr.Bha^vanD.ia 346,347 

UudMli! Manji r. MurarjiPrcmji 213 

riMh Sii^h Dhndhuria v. Niradburan Roy 553 

Budi'ce I)&* Mukim i\ Chooni Lai Johurry .... 577, 578, 579 

Budae Lall >' Kantoe Lall 311, 320 

JtjJrcee Lall r. In-lurputteo Ivors ar (Mussamn!;) ..... 348 

Bu'akhidas \ Kealia\lall 388,467 

Bull^o RamTwioxec r. Somcssur Panray" 298 

Buldoo Singh (Rajah) r. Koouwer jMahabccr Singh . . . 184, 304 
BulUbakant Chowdrec r. Kishonprea Dassca Ghowdtain . . 146, 151 

Buh ant Singh v Aman Singh 281 

Buhvaiit Xarjtin Ringli r. Ram Kishen Singh 478 

BU^LS^O Pvingli r. .Soodisht Lall 269 

Euuvedhur (Lalla) r Bindrscroo Dutt Singh . . 291, 294, 296, 297 

Bun&'o Lall r AoLidh Absan (Shaikh) 284, 302 

Bunwari Lai , . Daya Sunkor Misser 303, 307 

Pu- ilk Ohuttur Sin^r-i v. Gr cdharee SingU 283 

Bu'him DooRoy i\ Punchoo Roy ." ! 390 

Burm Snroop Doss (^lohunt) 2\ Klicshco Jha .... 562, 563 

Buryar Singh v. Hnnscc (Mnssumat) 357* 339 

Bu^unt Koomawe (Haharanco) v. Ivummul Koomarce (Maharanee) . ' 82 
B'izloor Ruheera (Moonshec) r. Shumsoonissa Begum . . .67, 68, 73 
Burning Sahoy Singh i\ Mantora Cho\vdhrain (Hussumut) . ". \ 297 

Byari i\ Puttanna * 301 

Byjnath Lall v. Ramoodoon Chowclry ...]."]! 303 
Byjnath Porshad (Lalla) v. Bissen Beharcc Sahoy Singh* .' .' 479 sib 

Byfnath Pcrshad r. Kopilmon Singh ' . ' 26 

Bykant Moncc Roy r. Kisto Soondorce Roy '. [ n , 130, 133, 193 
Bykunt S^oth Roy r, Orish Chnndrr Moob*rjpo 508 



01' 



C. 

x'AO 1* 

Cally Churn Muliiuk i'. Bliuggobutly Churn Mullick , . . . 4< 

v. Janova Doaseo tUi 

("ally Natli Naugh Chowdhry i' Chundcr Niitli Xaugh Cho\ulLry . 3;j;;. ,\it, 

r,l 

Caralapathi Chunna Cuniiiah r. Cola Xanxuialwariah . . . t II , H,'} 
Oosuumbhoy Ahmedbhoy i* Ahinedbhoy Hubibhoy . . 2JM, jr>>, ;5J7 
Cavaly Voncata Narrainapah r. Collector of ^tisuhp>Vi am . . ll'l t7(J 

Chabildas Lallabhai i\ Rfimdas Chabildas Ji,*, :!,~tO 

Cham Sukh Ram i\ Paibati 1 L* 

ChakaUngam Pillai r. Mayandi Chcttiar rhti 

ChalakondA Alasani i\ Chalakonda RatnachaLam . . . . Zii3, J.">0 

CJialamayya r. Varadayya 277 

Challa Papi Rcddi r Ohalla Koti Reddi 1U, a IJ 

Challa Subbiah Sastri t. Palur\- Pattabhiramayya t i i' 

Chamaill Kuar r. Ram Prasad , . . . . . . :; >J 

Chamanlal Alaganlal (Sha) /. Do^Iu i'lanosh Mou* 5 anl . . !**3. tu 7. I7*i 

f'hamia, In the matter of :;7 

Champat i\ Shiba . . . , . . . . . l,*ii 

(Jhandaiiia v Saligram . . . . . . . , . J7ii 

Chandar Kishoic r. Dampab Kiblioic J30, ;uJ 

Chandar Shckhar r. Kundan Lai . yr>,{ 

Cliander Pershad r. Sham Kocr ;{ 1 5 

Chand Hurree Maitce r. Norendro Xaraiu Roy (Rajah) . . . :J.V> 

Chandika Bdklish i'. Muna Kuar 2f, 3J,3i]5, ;S;l 

Chandra v. Gojarabai 101 fl 195, 108, Ji!) 

Cliandrabhagabai w. Kashinath Vithal .... 81,80, JJO 

Chandradeo Singh z?. Mata Prasad .... 309,313,311,315 
Chandra Kunwar (Ram) p. Narpat Singh (Chaudhri) . . . 172, 175 
Chandiamala Patta Mahadevi (Sri Sri) <. ^luktmiiala Patta Mihadi.u 

(Sri) !"{: 

Chandranath Chakrabarti c. Jadabendra Chalcrabarti .... ,~7< I 

Chandrareka u. Secretarj T of State 2 iO 

Chandra Sen r. Ganga Rain 312, 310 

Chandu i\ Subba Ihl 

Chanvirrapa v. Danava o )J 

Charavur Tciamath i\ Urath Lakshrui. ...... 3r0 

Charu Chunder Pal v. Nobo Sunded Dasi . 371, 4J4, 4."7 

Chatarbhuj iv Chatarjifc 530, 5CW 

Chatranayan (Lala) i\ Uba Kum\ari ....... 4S5 

Chatturbhooj Meghji . Dharamsi Naranji . . 18K i30, 241, 211, 2ts\ :iut 

Chatturbhxij Patnaik p. Krishna Patnaik J8.*> 

Chatu Misser v. Jeeva ]MLser 50 1 

Chedambarainma i. Hussainainma 177 

Cheetha (^lusbamut) t\ Afihcen Lall (Baboo) 2J!l, 2." i 

Cholikani Tjrupati Rayaningaiu Vcncata Gopala Xarasimha Ran Baha- 
dur (Rajah Surancni) 3U, 3*t, 40 J 

Chellammal v. Eanganatham Pillai , --S, 3S3 

Chellaperoomall i\ Verrapcroomall ..,.*,. -5*) 

Chellummal v, Munummal 1 15 

Chenava v. Basangavda * . . . . . lOii 

Chenehamma v. Subbaya ItiO, 101 

Chengama Nayudu v, Munisami Xayudu 330 



OF CASES CtT-fclD. 

fc! 
* 39 

Cht'lti r. Chotti 52! 

tVlti Chalaiuaniw r. Pudivinin Subbamuiia . . - , .J t al l 
<<U,ttikuUm VenkitichftUi lU-ddi*r -. Chottikulam Kumaru \cukitachala 



iv L-muui ^ur VonLdtKlii-lU Reddyer r. Rungusa^my Strcc- 
liuinthr^tngarBahacloor (Rajah) . ' " 

C^ ttv C,.!m Puisunna \',ncata,h,l!a Reddyar ,. Ch.lty Outam Moodoo 



/; . -" . 349,350 
. Jadavbai ort 

,-. liapubhai 






<. rihoobarti KCKP ....... ' 

rhvlnujaram Choltior r. < louri Xacluar ...... 

' inhmba,r,\>.uma 4'. Hussainamma ....... 

i J.ithmlartiMuUliar ".Koothaperumal ...... * 

riid,imhdr:i neiMi.tr i. Xallammal . ...... 

r. Rangathariar (Sri) ..... |^ 

Mmaramal ....... 



(. . 

Chinan Lai i. Hail Chaud . ..... 282 

< Umnaji Guund Uodboie v. Dinfcw Bhondev Godbolc . 274, 472, 482, 485 
I 'iuu \ ocrayya r. Lakshminarasamma ..... *** 

' 



r 1 . a^aa^aJllu 

r. VcnkatachaJa ....... 404, 4 U 

Clunno, Nagayya r. Pedda Nagayya ...... 

Chinna Obayya r. Sura Rcddi . ...... 181 

I'hiuuaramakridtna Ayyar y. Miaatchi Ammal ..... - 1 "* 

r Mima Rangayangar t?. Subbraya Mudali ...' 58 ^ 
rhmnasauu Filial r. Kunja Pillai . . . - ^ 
1 lunna ^aa\asi Razu (Rripati) v. Suriya Razii (Sripati) . . . . 3i>i 

C'hinua Uinraayi r. Tegarai Chetti ...... 1 ? 9 ?1 

LLSaa^. Rrumal ....... 285, 310, 313 

Chimiaya Xayudu L\ Uuruudtham Chetti ..... -//, 2b8 

I. hin^.u" Pill u"r Kalimuthu Chetti ....... 302 

t'Hiuumau Bajaji Dev r. Dhondo Gaucsh Dev . . 370, 577, 580, 581 
( Miintaiuaarav Mehendalc i\ Kabhiiiath ..... 311, 314 

( 'hintamony Dutt r. ^lohosh Chuiidra Bancrjee ..... 513 

( 'hintamuu ^inyh (Chowdhry) v. Nowlukho Konwan (IMussaniut) 27, 260, 264, 

516, 517 
riuntu e 1 . Dhoiidu ..... ., ... 173 

( Irirm olu Punnamma r. Ohiruvolu Perrazu . 167, 499, 500, 502, 505^ 
Chitko Raghunath Rajadiksh r. Janaki . . . 134, 173, 185, 186 
Chnoneclal r. Jussoo Mull Dcvocdas ....... ^S 1 

Chooney Money Basseo i\ Ram Kinkiu- Dutt ..... 478 

t'hoora i. Busuntw (Mussumat) ........ 364 

Ch*ummani Dasi i\ Baidya Nath Naik ..... 481, 508 

Chotalal I-ahhniiram r. Maaohar Oanosh Tambekar 554, 555, 557, 560, 576 9 

577 



OJ- t'Assl^ Ui'EU. XXVU 



Chotay Laii # Oliunuo Lall , -3, :iby, ibi, 45 

Chottoo Misscr w. Jomali ftlmsiT . . . ,vJ 
Chotun Bcbce % Ameer Chund . . . . . i7, <>s, 7'1 

Ohoundanalec Balioojte (Cjotjoeii Sroe) /. (iii'dhaut-jtu , . . .117 
Chowdhraui i\ Tariny Kanth Lahiry ..... 75, ;i55, 135 

Chovrdhry Pudum Singh r Koer Oodcy Smgh . . 112, J 17, 1 10, 171 
Chuckrodhuj Thakoor y. Beer Uhunder Joobraj .... 5(, 57, !r> 

C'lmckun Lall Singh i\ Poran Chundor Sin^li , . . -J25, ^70, i'7;i 
Clmmmun Mohunt v. Rajendur Sahoo ..... , "in 

Ohuuuin Lall i\ Gunput Lall (Lalla) ..... lUl. i^, ^4 

( 1 hundcc Cho^dhry i\ Macnaghtoii ....... *'!> 

<Jjiundtr Coouiar r. Hurbuns Sahai . . o02 

Chundercooinar Roy z? Gone&h Chunder Doss ..... WU 

( 'hunder Kant Chowdhry i\ Nund Lall Chowdhry . . . . 2 JJ 

Cliundcr Kant Sunnah /', Buiigshcc Deb Suruiah ..... 1-i 

Chundcr Koomar Gangoolv *'- Rajkishen Banorjoe . . 49 i, 5lU 

(Jhundcrkoomar Hazaiw 4'. JJuarkanath Purdliati .... riu*. 

C'hunder Mohinto Dotast'c < Huiiosaonduioo Do^.< . ~js 

C'lmnderMonw? Debia r. Kii&t Clmndti ^Muonulai . , . 

rimndfrmonry Du^ec . Hurry Doss Mitt or ..... U'i 

Chundcrnath Xuudi r Hur Xaram Deb , ... .'S5S 

I'hundernath Roy (Rajah) /. Uobindnath llo\ (Koonr) . . . . 175 

Chundi Churn Barua t\ Hidhc'^aii DC bi (Rum) . . . ."53,'J, 5iH, .^Jj 

Chundi-abulce Debia r. Brody ........ *J ; > 

Chundramouey Dossee r. Motilal Muliick ...... 51^5 

Ohundro Scekur Roy r. Nobui Soondur Roy ..... 27 

Chundro Tara Duba v. Bukah Ali ....... 2r>< > 

Chunilal o. Mali (Bai) ......... 4 ^ 2 

Chunilal y. Surajram ......... 54, 55, fio 

Chunni Lai y. Sita Rain ...... . 1US 

Chunnu Datt Vyas r. Babu Nandan ....... * ] 

Chuiamim Saha i. Gopi Sahu .... 52, 53, 284, 130, -4^4. 183 

Chuttan Lai r. Kallu ......... | JO * 

Chutter Dharce Lall r. Bikaoo LL\! ....... !W*> 

Chutter Scin (Raja), Elder \\-ido\\ of, r. Clmtter S^in (Raja), Younger 



Chuttur Narain (Lalla) i\ AYooma Koonwaree (Mussamui) . . ^ |>o2 
Chyet Naraia Singh t\ Bunwaree Singh ..... 233, 340 

Civil Revision Petition 101 of 1882 ..... _-^ _ ^* 

C'omulmony Dosaee . Rammanath Bysack . . . . 78, 85, 87, 530 

Cuomara Yuttapa Naikar ?. A r eiikak'a\vara Yettia . . . M$> 3SJ 

Cooverji Hirji o. Dowscy Bhoja ....- 3l, IJ2U 

Cossinaut Bysack v. Hurrosoondery Dossee . . $\, 424, 4l>9, 4.3, .U> 

Cotay Hegaday v. Manjoo Kunipty ..... 1 01 

Court of Wards i\ Kopulmun Sing ....... -^ 

_ _. i% Mohossur Roy (Rajah) ....-* 43S 

Crowloe r Bhekdhan Sinff ....... * ^^ 

Cursandas Gonnclji r. Vundravandas Purshotam . w<> 



JD. 

Dabychurn Mitter v. Iladhachum Mitter *"*"?? 
OoUeotor of v. Jagat Chumkr Goswami 415 



OF CASSIS CITED. 



Rukinabai ..... 01,07,68,69,70 

Bagai Babee v, Mothuranath Chattopadhya . . 522 

Bagdu v. Kamble .......... 296 

Bagdusa Shevakdas v. Ramchandra . ...... 9 

Bagree v. Pacotti San Jao ........ 22, 25 

Bagumbaree Baboe v. Taramoney Baboe ...... 145 

Baivasikainani PandarasannedM (Srimafch) & Noor Mahomed Routhan 564, 567 
Bakhina Kali Bebi v. Jagadishwar Bhuttacharjee .... 476 

Bal Chund v. Soonder (Mussumat) ...... 230,365 

Balel Kunwar v. Ambika Partap Singh ..... 87, 180 

Balibai v. Gopibai .......... 291 

Balip v. Ganpat ......... 227, 383 

Balip Singh v. ICundan Lai , ....... 277 

Bal Koer (Musst.) v. Panbas ICoor (Musst.) ...... 328 

Balpat Narotam v. Bhagvan Khusal ....... 454 

Balpateing v. Nanabhai ......... 293 

Balpatsiughji v. Baisinghji ........ 203 

Bal Singh v. Bid. (Musammat) ........ 369 

Balflukram Maliasukram v. Lallubhai Motiohand .... 80 

Bamodar v. Jankibai ......... 478 

Bamodarbhat v. BhogUal Karsondas ... 654, 577, 578, 580 
Bamodar Bhatji v. Bhat Bogilal Kasandas ...... 581 

Bamodar Baa v. Lakhan Bas (Adhikari) ..... 567, 571 

Bamodardas Maneklal u. XJttamram Maneklal . 272, 273, 333, 334, 355, 576 
Bamodar Madhowji v. Purmanaudas Jeewandas . . . 441, 470 

Bamoderdas Tapidas n Bayabhai Tapidas ...... 531 

Bamoodur 3Misser v. Senabutty Misrain . 328, 329, 332, 333, 334, 337 

Damoodur Mohapattur v. Birjo Mohapattur ..... 293 

Bamoodur Surmah v. Mohee Kant Surmah ...... 502 

Banakoti Ammal . Balasimdara Mudaliar ...... 123 

BaneBh Sheikh v. Tafir Mandal ....... 03 

Banno v. Barbo ........ 337^ 443 

Barsu Pandey v. Bikarmajit Lai ....... 309 

Barves Haji Mahomed v. Jainudin ....... 577 

Basaradhi Ravalo v. Joddumoni Ravulo ...... 283 

Basharathi Kundu v, Bipin Behari Kundu ...'.. 460 
Basondhay v. Muhammad Abu Nasar ....... 579 

Battaji Sakharam Bajadiksh v. Kalba Yose Parabhu . . . 307, 513 
Battatraya v. Govind ......... J^Q 

- v. Rukhmabai ......... g^ 

-- a Vishnu ....... ; 314,317 

Battatraya Vithal v. Mahadaji Parashram ..... 341,358 

Batti Parisi Nayudu v Batti Bangaru Nayudu . . . .227,' B83 

Batto Govind Kulkarni v. Pandurang Vinayak ..... 123 

Baulat Ram v. Ram Lai ...... \ JQ^ 

Baulta Kuari v. Meghu Tiwari ...... .* *82 8^ 

Bavud Saiba (Sheikh) v. Hussein Saiba . . . , * - 589 

Baya (Bai) v. Nafta Govind Lall . . . . * ' 6 %{* 

Baya Khushal v. Bhikhi (Bai) ..... ! ! . " 3U2 

Bayaldas Laldas v. Savitribai ...!*.*" 4^2 
Bayamani Bebi v. Srinibash Kundu ...!!"' 47^ 
Baya Shankar v. Hub Lai . * < 

BebeeBialfl. Hur Hor Singh ...""'" u* 

BebeePershad^PhoolKoeree ...!!!'. 348,552 



oi 1 



bebendra Coomar Roy Chowdhry w. Brojendra Coomar Eoy Chowdhry 85, 224^ 

334, 530 

Debendro Narain Boy (Rajah) v. Chundcrnath Roy (Coomar) . . 497 
Debendro Nafch Mullick v. Odit Churn Mullick ..... 576 

Debi Baksh Singh v. Chandrabhan Singh ...... 519 

Debi Das Chowdhun v. Bipro Charan Ghosal ..... 498 

Debi Bat v. Jadu Rai ........ 310,313 

I)cbi Dayal Sahoo v. Bhan Pcrtap Singh . . . 294, 482, 483, 484 
Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh .... 336 

Debi Parshad v. Thakur Dial ..... 236, 237, 242, 339 

Debiprasanna Roy Chowdhry v, Harendra Nath Ghoso . . . 459, 401 
Debi Prosad Chaudhury v. Qolap Bhagat . . . . 487, 488, 491 

Debi Prosad Sahi v. Dharamjit Narayan Singh ..... 282 

Debi Sahai v. Sheo Shankar Lai ........ 464 

Dobi Saran Shukul #. Doulata Shuklain ...*.. 83 
Dobi Singh v. Jia Ram ........ 281, 31 6 

Debur Ramnath Roy Chowdhry v. Arnee Kally Debia (Sroemutty) . 2 10 
Deodar Hossoin (Rajah) v. Zahoor-oon-Nissa (Ranee) .... 259 

Doela Singh v. Toofanee Singh ....... 265, 257 

Doondyal Lai v, Jugdeep Narain Singh . . . 300, 300, 319, 336 
Docno Moyeo Dossee (Sreemutty) v, Doorga Porshad Mittor . . 127, 133 
Deeno Moyee Dosseo (Sreemutty) v. Tarachurn Koondoo Chowdhry 127, 129, 

333 
Doepo Dobia t>, Gobindo Deb ....... 12, 424 

Deepoo (Mussamma-ut) v. Gowree Shunkur ...... 201 

Dolroos Banoo Begum v. Ashgar Ally Khan (Nawab Syud) . , . 585 
Delrus Banoo Begum v. Abdur Ruhmnan (Hadjee) .... 594 

Denonath Shaw v. Hurrynarain Shaw . . . . . , . 250 
Dcobomoyee Dossoe v. Juggessxir Hati ...... 46 

Deo Bunsee Kooer (Mussamut) v. Dwarkanath . . . . 329, 347 

Dcokoo (Mxissumat) v. Sookhdeo ....... 309 

Deo Kiwhon v. Budh Prakash ...... 229, 371, 374 

Doolu Singh v. Anupa (Musammat) ....... 350 

Doo Koomvur ?;. Umbaram Lala ....... 76 

Deonandan Pershad v. Udit Narayan Singh ..... 486, 514 

Deo Pernad v. Lujoo Roy ........ . 405 

Deotarco Mahapattur v. Damoodhur Mahapattur .... 284, 280 

Deowanti v. Dwarkanath ........ 329, 347 

Dorajo Malinga Naika v. Marati Kaveri ....,, 98 

Desai RancJbhoddas v. Rawal Nafcfeubai . . . . . .32 

Devarayan Chetty v. Mutturamain Chotty ...... 52 

Dva Singh v. Rai K^nohar ........ 280 

Xteti 'B^iJsatJ ?, Gtmwanti Koer ...... 79, 87, 210 

DOVJI v. Bambhu ..... . . . . .317 

Dovkore (Bai) v. Amritram Jamiatram ...... 380 

- v. Sanmukram ... ..... 80 

DiwHhankar Naranbhai v. Motiranx Jageshvar ..... 550 

Dovu ^7. Doyi ........... 380 

D*oyanath Roy v, Muthoor Nath Ghoso . , . . 421, 431 

Dhadphaio v. Gurav .......... 570 

Dhapabai v. Champalal . ........ 150 

J)h&njibhoy Bomanji t. Hirabai ....... f 70 

Pharam Chand v. Janki ....... .- . 98 

i r r BhAwani Mfuaia ..... ! , , 479, ^10 

1 ' 



XXX11 TAfiLfi Ofr CABBB OllflD* 



E. 

Ekradeswar Singh v. Janeshwari Babnasin * * 30, 263, 347 

Elayachandidathil Kombi Aohen v. Kenatomkora Lakshmi Amma . 286 
Elayalwar Reddiar v. Namberumal Chettiar .... 580, 591 

Emperor v. Anthony . 36 

n. Ganga (Bai) 37 

v. Lazar , 23,36 

v.MadanGopal 39 

2?. RamSarap 232 

Empress i\ Pitambur Ringh 63 

Emnrtee (Mussamut) v. Nirmul 69 

JCndoori Venkataramaniah v. Venkatachaiiiulu 84 

Es&iab r. Gabriel 544 

Eslun Ckundcr Roy v. Monmohim Das&i 575, 570 

Eshan Kishor Acharjee Chovrdhry v. Haris Chandra Cho\\dhry . . 151 

F. 

Faizuddin AH Khan v. Tincowri Saha , ISO, 194, M)5 

Fakira Dobey v. Gopi Lall 474 

Fakirapa v. Chanapa . . . , . . . . .301 

Fakirappa v. Fakirappa 228, 386 

v. Yellappa . 381 

Fakir Chand v. Daya Ram . . 308 

Fakirchand Motichand o. Motichand Hurruckchand .... 313 

Fakirgauda v. Gangi . ' . 38, C2, 68, 72 

Fakurudin Sahib v. Ackeni Sahib 590,591 

Fanindra Deb Raikat K Rajeswar Das ... 32, 50, 57, 102, 205 
Fanmdra Kumar Mitter v. Administrator- General of Bengal . . ,540 
Fannyamma v. Manjaya Hebbar . . , , ,- * , ,169 
Fafcesangji Jasvatsangji (MaHarana Shri) v. Haridanji Fat^sangji (Kuvar) , ^5 
Felaram Roy v. Bagalanaad Banerjee .... 478, 482, 4$5, 512i 

^Fernandez v. Alves 544 

Fiancis Ghosal v. Gabri Ghosal 24 

Fuggoo Daye v. Ranah Daye .,..,.,. 216 

Furaund Hossein v. Janu Bibee 72 

Futtick Cliunder Chatterjee v. Juggut Mohinee Dabee . . . 229, 371 
Futtoo Bibee v. Bhurrut Lall Bhukut 549 



G. 

0. v. E). 4 . * 9 . t m 4 o 4 ^ 76 

Gabind Prasad (Lala) fc Doukt Batti 71, 78 

Gadadhar Bhat v. Ohandrabhagabai 468,470/471 

Gadadhar 3Etoy % Hari Krishna Sarkar . , . , , f . ' > -,/ ^ 
^^)pp Desai ti. Apaji Jivanrao . . . . . , ' " i. , &% 



R 

Gajadhai a Kaunsilla 111! 370 

Gajadhar Pan<Je v, Parbafci Ill ?10 

Gajanan Balfcrishna v. Kashinafch Narayan . ... 1 1 143 

Gajapatit>. Bhagawaa,D^ ...... 1 568,572 

Gajendar Singh v Sardar Singh ........ 350 

Gajmdar Narain (Rai) v. Hanhar Narain (Rai) J J 222, 269 ; 277, 279 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



Gambhirmal v. Hamirmal . . .> 

Ganapz,.Subbi ...!!''."' 

Ganapathi Ayyar v. Vedavyasa Alasitigha Bhattar (Sri) . 583 584 5?M 
Ganapati*;.BharatiSwami . ! . . w, , 589 

Ganapati Ayyan v. Savithri Ammal . . ." llfl ' 179 ^ ^ lgB 

uandavethara Ayyangar v. Pevanayya Mudali .... 591 

Gandhi Maganlal Motichand v. Jadab (Bai) . 393, 410, 434, 447, 453, 466, 467, 

' ' 4RS d.ftQ 

Gane Bhive Parab v. Kano Bhivo ..... 25i 291 ' 292 
Ganendro Mbhun Tagore v. Juttendro Mohiin Tagore (Rajah)" . ' "" . ' 533 
Ganesha Row v. Tuljaram Row . , ..... " 277 287 
Ganesh Bharnidhar Maharajdev (Shri) v. Keshavrav Govind Kulgavkar 9* 565 
Ganesh Putt Thakoor (Ohowdhry) v. Jewaoh Thakoorain (Mussamat) 221, 333, 

1 337 349 

Ganoshi Lai v. Ajudhia Prasad . ....... '45! 

Gaaesh Vaman Kulkami v. Waghu .,...[ 394,411 
Ganes Sing ,v. Rapagopal Sing ...... * . ' 591 

Gang^bai v. Anaat ....... ! ! ". 103 

* - v - Bandu ....... , 333^ 334. 

-- v, Tarabai ........... 170 

" 249,283,306 



,, 
Ganga Bai t. Sita Ram ..... . . . 80, 210 

Ganga Bishoshar v. Pii^hi Pal ........ ' 285 

Gangadaraiya v. Parameswaramma . . ..... 4i2 

Ganga Pas v. Taluk D$s ......... 572 

Gangadhar ,v. YeUu . , ......... 368 

Gangadhar Bogla v. Him Lai Bogla ..... . 188 

Ganga Jati (Musammat) v, Ghasita . . , . , . 369, 44$ 
Gtanga NaraysHi Pas v. Saroda Mohan Roy ...... 2#$ 

Ganga Pershad Sahu v. Jhalo ....... ' . 216 

Garigaram v. Bailia Vithoba ........ 411 

Ganga Sahai v. Hira Singh , . . . . . . . 146, 173, 229 

-- v.Kesri ........ 392,394 

- > i\ Lekhraj Singh ...... 15, 17, 156, 169 

Gangayya u. Mahalakshnii . . * ..... 502f 

Gangbai v. Thavur Mulla ....,.. 550, 551 
Gangu r. Ohandrabhagabai ...... 373, 374, 412 

Gangubai v. Ramanna ....... 184, 303, 304 

Gangulu v. Anoha Bapulu ........ 308, 309 

Ganpat v. Annaji ....... 236, 272, 273* 352 

- v. Tnlsiram ..... , . . . 481, 484 

Ganpat Pandurang v. Adarji I>adabhai ..... * S 

Gaa|iai Bai v. Mnnni Lai ........ ,, , 276 

Ganpai Rao v. Ram Ghandar ....... . 443 

Ganpatrao Moroji v. Vamanrao Shamrao ..... 466, 510 

Ganpatrav Vireshvar v. Vithoba Khandappa . . . ,* 142 

Ganpat Ventkatesh Peshpande v. Gopalrao Venkatesh Peshpande . . 330 
Ganraj Pubey v. Sheozore Singh ....... 303 

Gan Savant Bai Savant v. Narayan Phond Savant . . . 219, 279 
Gantapalli Appalamma v. Gantapalli Yellaya ..... 71 

Garabini Passi v, Pratap Chandra Shaha ...... 90 

Gatha Ram Miatree v. Moohjta Kochin Atteah Pomoonee . . 56, 65, (>7 

....... 'i'l'flTO 



XXXIV TABLE Of CA8BS CITED. 

PAGE 

Ctauci Dftt r. Our Bahai **,*.... 606 

Ganri Bahat i\ Rukko , ..... 304, 360 

<J*ar Mohan Cliow^hry rv M*dmi Mohan Chowdhry . * . 575, 576 
(bvfepitt r, CKrimalltpp* . 124, 127, 130, 131, 133, 194 

Garritthfcnkar Parabhuram p. Atmararu Rajarara ..... 343 

G'avuridevamma Cant (Sri Rajah \Vnumala) v. Ramandora Garu (Sri 

Rajah Ycmunala)* ... ...... 260 

tvayikdin r, Raj Bantsi Kuar .*.,.... 280 

Gemia Purl r. Ohhatar Puri ...... . 568, 571 

<rhana Kanta Mohanta r. Gt*a4i ...... 206, 207 

i*hinclara| Singh r. Lachnum Singh ..... , 170 

Uhanshani Singh i\ Ba!iya Lai ...... 202, 293, 510 

v. Khakk Singh ..... 270, 282, 283, 287 

r. Nanhi Jan , ..... . 103 

r. Umrao Jan ......... 29 

(Jliftzaffar Hussdn Khan r. Yawar Husain .... 578, 579, 580 

Ohm & Sttkru . ........ 48, 50 

Cihelabai R, Hargovan ,*... ...6 

- r. JTaver (Bai) ......... 4M 

GJwlabfli Gawisliankar P. Udcram Icharam ..... 579, 530 

(Jhwnshyani Singh v. Ronjcet Singh ,.... 266 
Girdhar r. Kalya ..... ..... 8 

Ctirdharee I-all r. Kantoo LaJl .,*... 304, 308, 310 
Glrdharlal Krishnavalabh v. Shiv (Bai) ...... * 323 

Girhi Rani Hisrani v. Chandra Lai Kanth ..... 224,226 

Girianna Murfcuncli Naik v. Honama ....... 81 

Giriapa r. Xingapa ......... ^ j7 

Ciiribala Dassi v. Srinath Chandra Singh ...... 492 

Girija Kanta Chakrabarty p. Mohim Chandra Acharjya . . .301 
GinjfUHmdDattftJhai?. Sailajanund Datta Jha . . . .558,560 

Giriowa n, Mimaji Ra^hra&tli ....... 129u 144 

p. SawJwMv Bferawiijca ....... 348 



Girwurdhsice Sing (Baboo) p. Kiilahul Sing ..... 226 

<<irwar Narain Mahton v f Makbunessa (Mussammat) . . . 267, 279 
Gitabai IT. Shivbakas ........ 32, 34*, 416 

Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi v Kandasami Tambiran 415, 661, 562, 

it . 572,579,502 

Cinanabhai r. 0. Snnivasa PiJIai ........ 333 

(Inanaramal i\ Huthwsami ...... .* i [ 281 

Gnasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Veto Pandaraui 565, 566, 567, 569, 570 573 
GolMttdhaa Dass v, Jasadamoni Dassi ....... C4 

Gobardhan Salra v. Bulkhan Mahto ...!![ 23*6 245 
Uobinda Chandra Babajee, 7 fAe ^oorf^ o/ . . . . * . ? 210 

Gobuida Kumar Roy CShowdtuiy . Debeadm Kumar Roy Chowdlittiy ] 574 
<S^biad CJiandca Sarma Mazoomdar n, Anand Mohan Sarma Mazoomdar 170 



\ Dulmeer Khan ..... 76 
v. Doorgapersad Baboo .... 256 
* Abdul Qayyum . ... 350^466 



t>. KJiunni Lai 



Vp&mwsk Ckunder Roy 
Boy r. Eato feaony Chowdhty 



. 350, 374, 495 

199, 477, 501, 502 

. 431 

, 193, 200 



TABM OF OASES CITED. XXXV 

PACE 

Gobind Prasad v. Gomti .*..**. 549 
Gobind Proshad Talookdar v. Mohosh Chundor Surma Ghuttuck 421, 423, 

426, 429, 430 
Gobind Singh v. Buldoo Singh ........ 512 

Goburdhun Nath v. Onoop Roy 493 

Gocoolammd Dass v. Wooma Daco .,.,*, 138, 191 

Godavaribai v. Sagunabai &2 

Gojabai v. Maloji Raje Bhoslo (Shrimant Shahajirao) . 19, 63, 451, 454 

Gokal Kastur v Amarchand 275 

Goldbal v. Lakhmidas Khimji 81, 82, 81, 80 

Gokool Nath Guha v. Issur Lochun Roy 55 1 

Gokool Pcrshad v, Etwa,ree Mahto 208 

Gokul Chand v. Mangal Son 527 

Golab Chand v. Goluk Monee Dossee . 247 

Golab Koonwer (Musst) v. Shib Sahai ...,,. 387, 501 
Golab Koonwur (Mussumat) v. Collootor of Benares .... 70 
Golak Nath Roy Chowdhry v. Mathura Nath Roy Ghowdhry . . 302 

Golamee Gopee Ghose v. Juggessur Ghose 47, 48 

Goiapdi Meah v. Purna Chandra Dutta 274 

Goluck Chunder Boae v. Rughoonath Sree Chunder Roy . . . 566 
Goiuck Chunder Boso (Baboo) v. OhiUa Dayo (Ranee) .... 92 

Golukmonoo Dassee v. Kishenpersad Kanoongoo 505 

Gomain Sircar v. Prannath Goopto ...... 292, 293 

Gonda Koer v. Oodey Singh (Kooer) 474, 475 

Gonesh Pandey v. Daboe Doyal Singh 316 

Goolab (Mt) v. Phool (Mt) 386 

Goolab Sing (Kooer) v. Kurun Sing (Rao) . . 393, 398, 488, 502, 507 

Goornee (Mussumat) v. Oomrao Koonwer (Mussumat) * 364 

Gooroo Churn v. Goluckmoney ........ 24<J 

(Jooroo Churn Sircar v. Koylash Chunder Sircar , 367, 42S 

Gooroo Gobindo Chowdhry t. Huree Madhub Roy . . . . 42 1 

Gooroopersaud Jena v. Muddunmohun Soor .... 288, 482 

Gooroopcrshad Bose v. Rashbehary Bose 180 

Gooroo Pershad Roy v. Bebee Pershad Tewareo 255 

Gooroo Prosunno Singh r. Nil Madhub Singh 173 

Goor Pershad v. Sheodeen 302 

Goor Surun Doss v. Ram Surun Bhukut 225, 300 

Gooshaeen Teekumjee v. Pursotum Lalljee 375, 508 

Gopal v. Macnaghten ......... 267 

Gopala Ayyar v. Arunachallam Chetty , 586 

Gopala K>ishnam v. Venkatanarasa . . . . 34, 53, 289 

Gopal Ananfc v. Sfarayan Ganesh 106 

Gopalasami v. Chinnasami 245 

Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunaehelam Chetti ... 99, 209, 22$, 2&) 

Gopalasami Pillai v. Chokalingam Pillai .317 

Gopalayyan v. Raghupatiayyan 28, 31, 141, 174 

Gopal Balkrishna Kenjale v. Vishnu Raghunath Kenjale 124, 126, 127, 147, 

157, 194, 197 

Gopal Chand Pande v. Kunwar Singh (Babu) 285 

Gopal Chandra Chakrabarty v. Radharaman Das Babaji . . . 568 
Gopal Chandra Pal v. Ram Chandra Pramanik ... - 437, 450 

Gopal Ghundor Bose 0. Kartick Chunder Dey $70 

<?te^p(it^^erDaghoriar. Kenaram Daghoria .... 360>414 b 
dopalOhunderNathCoondoov. HaridasChini . . .429,430,431 



TABIrB OF OASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Gopai Das * Badri Nath 267 

Gopal Das Sindh ?. Nurotum Sindh 31 

GopalDass(MohTmt)aKorparamBass(Mohunt) . . . 565,672 

Qopal Bel p. Konno Dei, 577 

Gopal Dutfc Pandey v. Gopallal Misser 242 

Gopal Hari r. Ramakanl 260,261 

CJopal Kastur v. Amarchand 275 

Gopal Lai t>. Mahadeo Prasad 303 

Gopalnarain Mozoomdar v. Muddomutty Guptoe 278 

Gopal Narhar Safray v. Hanmant Ganesh Safray . . 138, HI, 142, 156 

Oopal Prosad Bhakat v. Raghunath Dob 265,286 

Ctopalrav v. Trimbakrav 261 

Gopal Bingli v. Dhungazec 370, 37-i 

Uopaul Ghundcr Manna v. Gour Monce Dossoe 489 

Gop-'O Kishcn Gossain v. Hem Chundor Gossain 23G 

Vm Ryland 269 

Gopee Kissen Gossamy v. Thakoor Doss Gossamy . . . 575,576 

Gopeoknst Gosain v. Gungapersatid Gosain 255 

Gopee Lali . Bliugwan Doss (Mohunt) 255 

Ciopco Lall v. Chundraolce Buhooje (Mossamat) gree . 103, 113, 133, 173 

Gopce Mohtm Deb v. Raja Rajkrishna 188 

Gopeenath Ghowdhry v. Gooroo Dass Surma 552 

Gopcshwar Misra v. Durgamani Baishnabi 488 

Gopi v, Jaldhara 239 

Gopichand , Sujan Knar 502 

Gopikabai v, Datt&traya 97 

Gopu Kokixdavelu Ghetty v. Sami Royar 581 

Gora Chand Lnrki v. Makhan I^al Chakravartty 567 

Gordhan Das v. Ch.iumi Lai 550, 552 

Gordhaadas v. Ramcoover (Bai) 362, 635 

Goeaion Chund Kobraj t?. Kishenmunnee (Mussummaut) 430, 441, 459, 461 
Goswami Sri Girdharji v. Madhowdas Premji .... 534, 563 
Goswami (Shriman) v. Girdharlaljl (Goswami Shri) .... 66$ , 
Goura Clxowdhrain. (Mussamut) v. Chummun Chowdhry . . 304, 363 

Gourbullub y. Jugernathpersaud Hitter 150, 180 

Gour Chunder Biswas v, Greesh Chunder Biswas . 257 

Goureenath i\ Collector of Monghyr 286, 371 

(toureepershaud Rat v. Jymala (Hiissummaut) 114 

Gourhurreo Kubraj r. Rutnasurce Dcbia (Mussummut) . . . 180, 182 
Gourichurn Patni r. Sita Patni ........ 370 

Gouri Sunker Byas v. Niader Sing 416 

Oour Lall Singh v. Mohesh Narain Ghose 221 

Cfourmoni Debi w. Chairman of Panihati Municipality . , . . 5 ? 7 

Gournath Chowdhree v. Arnopoorna Chowdhrain. 129 

Gour Porshad Narain v, Sheo Pershad Ram . . . ' . . 290, 291 

Govinda Pillai v. Thayammal 501, 50^ 50$ 

Oo/vindajL Nait ^. Sankaran Nair . . . . ' ; ' 34^ (& 

(^^dAaiiw^Bodlianiv. Trimbak Govind Dhaneshwar . . '.342 

Ooviud Clwpttet Das v. Radhaknsto Das 26^ 25^ 

Govind Krislaaa Ouj&r . Sakharam Naraya , 319 

Ooviad Lafesteaaa ^Foshi &. Ramkrishna Hari Joshi . . . 574, 575 

Govind Paa<te&g Kaaaat, In re 346 

Govind Rani Dasi % R&Ma Ballabk Das -. 211 

Govind Rao (Sri Mahan^) v, Bita "Ram Klosho . 251 



TABLE OF CASES 01TBD 4 

Govindarazulu Narasimbam v. Devarabhotla Vmkataaarasayya 34, 53, $80 

Govindayyar v. Dorasami Hi>, 153, 1^4 

Govinddas Dhoolubhdas t?- Muha Lukshumco 380 

Govindji Khimji p, Lakmidas Xathubhoy ...... 75 

Govindnath Bay (Maharajah) v. Gulal Chand .... 120, 148 

Greedharee Doss v. Nundkishore Dutt Mohunt 572 

v. Nundokishore Doss Mohunt . 661, 568, 570, 571, 572 

Groedhareejed (Gossamee Sroo) v. KumanloUjeo Gossainoe , . 546, 570 

Greender Ohunder Ghose v. Mackintosh 323 

Grcos Ghund Roy (Maharajah) v, Sumbhoo Chund Boy ... 98 

Grey u Walker 275 

Gridhari Lall Boy v. Bengal Government . 17, 18, 19, 26, 398, 404, 408, 410 

Grishchunder Banorjee v. Hemlota Dobi 541 

Grose v. Amirfeamoyi Dasi 474 $$ 

Gudadhur Senna v. Ajodhoaram Chowdry 247 

Guiram Ghosal v. Lall Behari Das ....... 558 

Gulab (Bai) . Thakorolal Praajivaridas 521, 526 

Gulabohund v. Fulbai 51, 52 

Gulab Kuar o. Bansidhar . , .81 

Gulappa Domingappa Kusugal v. Tayawa 453, 467 

Gulbai,JSc 214 

Gul Mahomod, In the matter of . . . . 



Gunos Gir v. Amrao Gir .... 
Gunesh Chunder Boy v. Nilkomul Boy 
Gunesh Dutt v. Lall Mutteo Kooor (Mussamut) 
Gunosh Dutt Singh (Baboo) v. Mohoshur Singh 



. 571, 572 
378, 405, 428 
501, 504, 505 

27, 259, 200 



Gunga (Baoe) v. Sheoshunkar (Baee) * . . . . . .141 

Gunga Baee v. Hogg i. 79 

Gwngadto Bogla (Kumar) v. Hira Lai Bogla (Kumar) . * . 188,451 
Gunga Dhur Ohattorjee v. Soorjo Nath Ghafcfeerjee . . . .258 
Gungagobind Boso v. Dhunnce (Sreemutty) ...... 296 

Gunga Mya v. Kishen Kishoro Chowdhry 465 

Gunga Narain Sircar v. Brindabun Ohunder Kur Chowdhry . . . 553 
Gungapersad Boy v. Brijessuree Ghowdhrain .... 181, 189 

Gunga Pershad v. Phool Singh 285,286,290 

Gunga Pershad v. Shoodyal Singh . . 225, 242, 289, 309, 314, 315 

Gunga Pershad Kur v. Shumbhoonath Burmun . . ,417, 424, 490 

Gungapershad Sahu v. Maharani Bibi 291 

Gunga Prosad v. Ajudhia Pershad Singh . . . 225,242,289,313 
Gungaram Bhaduree v. Kashee Kaunt Boy ...... 114 

Gungoomull v. Bunseedhur ........ 237 

GunilklahoiQedtr. Poorga Proshad Mytse 268 

Gtumaiyan v. Blamakohi Ayyar 249, 251 

Gunnapa Deshpandee v. Gunkapa 106 

Gunpat v. Gopalrao &3 

Gunput Lall (Lalla) v. Toorun Koonwar (Mussamut) . 53, 288, 289, 290 

Gunput Narain Singh, In the matter of S9 

Gunput Singh (Baboo) v. Gunga Pershad 442 

&ur Dayal v. Kaunsila .......* 88, 91 

Gurlingapa v, JsTandapa . ^^ 

Gurnak Prasad v. Jai Narain Lai w *$& 

Cur Pershad Singh v. Dhani Bai 263,264,516 

v. Tamana A 7 



JCXXviil TABM Of CASES CITED, 



awa Bivi N&g i>. MatHal Nftg ........ 10 # 

Gum Gofomd Shah* Mondal . Anand Ul Ohoso Mazumdar 360, 377, 415, 
417, 418, 420, 421, 422, 423, 426, 428, 431, 433 

Gurttlingaw&mi & Bam&lakBhmamma * 135,1(55,174 

GumlutgMivAnii (Sri Bahwu) r. Eamalakwhrnamma (Sri Balusu) 2, 11, 15, 17, 

101, 104, 121, 125, 135, 145, 140, 150, 170 
Onruniurthi Rcdtli v. Gurammal ...... 242, 253 

Gurunatham Chotty r. Raghavelu Chetty ...... 312 

Ottratiftth Niikanth P. Krinhnaji Ctovind ..... 4<>5,511 

GnniPraftad Roy *;. Na>arDasRoy ....... 476 

(Jnrasami Chtti '. Krkhnaaami Naikar ...... 591 

tJtmunimi Pillai /'. Si\Aknii Ammal ..... ^29 

(lurn^imi Santrial i\ Uanapathia Pillai ..... 294,311 

GurtJHhantAjtpa r, Chanmallappa ....... 2<>7 

Guni\aji]u r, Thinuna ........ 283,298 

Gunnayya Ctouda /'. Dattatraya Ananfc ..... 2C7, 279 

(iyancndro Chnnder Lahin r. Kallapahar Hajco , * . .117,149 
Gyancndfo Kath Eoy v, LolxHagomunjori Babi . . . . .105 

Gyan Koowur (Mussummatit) v. Dookhurn Singh . 465 

H. 

Hafeoottnissa Begum r. Radhabinode Missur . . . 301, 478, 491 
Hairnun CJhull Sing (Raja) r, Ghunshcam Sing (Koomcr) . .119, 191 
Hail Singh P. Babce Singh ........ 255 

Hakim Khan t. Cool Khan ........ 24 

Hammttclcah . Rungapah , ,.... 444 

llanmanta r. dopal .......... 278 

Hanmantapa i'. Jivnbai ........ 249,284 

Hanmant Ramchandra r. Bhimacharya . . . 104, 187, 209, 303 
Hanuman Kamat r. Bowlut Mundar . ..... 313, 315 

HanumanPrasad Singh r.BhagautiPrasad . . . 477,494,509 
Hanuman Singh ^ Kan&k Chand . . . * . . Sll 
Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi ...... 100, 101 

Karadhun Gossamer r. Ram Newaz Missry ...... 268 

i. Isser Cbmidcr Bosc ..... 477, 504 

r. Biswanath Rai ....... 127 

. Ram Lai , ........ 354 

Hamn Ohunder Banorji i% Hurro Mohun Chuckerbutty . . 139, 143, 145 
Kara Bunder Majumdar r. Basunta Kumar Roy ..... 552 

H&rdai N"arain r. Haruck Dhari Singh . . 241, 244, 280, 281, 309 
Hardeo Bux (Thakoor) f, Jawahir Singh * * ... 245,252 
Hartlwaii Lai v. Gomi . ........ 520 

Harek Chand Babu v. Be joy Chand Mahatab ..... 178 

Harendranar&yan, In the Goods of , . . . . . 471 

Harendrn, Nath Chowdhury v. Brinda Rani Dassi . , , . . 49 
HargawanMagani'. BaijnathDas ..... . 466,600 

HftrgobBid Knari P. Dharam Singh * . . . * . 208,227 
Had r, Maniti ........... 234' 

- *YMkw .......... 410 

BariTbhai r. tlbfc i, .......... 477 

Haribhat r. Damodharbhat ........ 467 

Hari Chintaman Bikshit P. Maro Lakshraan ..... 527 

Haxi Churn Agractani r, Sasti Churn Agradani 558 



TABLE OF OASES CITED, 



Haridas v. Volji 

Haridas Butt a, Ranganmiwii Basi ...... 4<^ 473 

Haridas Lalji v. Natota,m Kagbavji . , . 70, , 230, 3H *** *** 
Haridas Sanyai t>. Pran Nath Sanyal ...... 3&B, 333 

Hari Gopal u Gofcaldas Kuahabashet ....... 7 

Harihar Muner P. Mahomed (S^red) . . . * * * . iU 
Harihar Ojha *?. BasarathiHfer* ..... * .464,409 

Hui Kishen Bhagat r. Kaski Pcrshad Singh . . . 4*7, 4tt9 400 
Haii Kissen Bhagafc &, Bajrang Sahai Singh 4l, 512 

Hari Krishna Devi Gam (Sri Oajapaty) v. BadhikA Patia Maha 

Garu (Sri Gajapaty) ........ 

Harikristna Chowdary (Duvvada) />. Venkata Lakshmi Karayftjaa Panttilw 

(Sripada) ...... ..... 

Harilal Bapuji u. Hani (Bai) ......* 

HarilaJ Harjivandas &, Pranralavdaa Parbhudaa , 

Hari Lall Mullick, In the matter of ....... ** 

Harila! Pranlal v. Bewa (Bai) ...... MS), 442, 143 

Hari Mahadaji Savarkar v. Balambhat Eaghunath Kharu * 

Hari Narayan Brahmo r. Cuinpafcrav Daji ...* 

Han Narayan Jog r. Vital . 

Hari Prasad Jha (Baboo) i'. Muddan Mohan Thakur . 

Hari Premji (Patil) v. Hakamchand .*.,* 

Hari Bam v. Bishnath Singh 

Hari Saran Moitra v. Bhuhanoswari Bob! .. 

Harieh Chandra Roy t>. AtirSahmud ..... 

Hari Singh v. Sher Sing ..... . . , 384 

HariVithalv. JairamVithal ........ ** 

Hari Vy^nathAyyan w. Minaksbi Ammal i 4W 

Harjivan Anandram r. N"aran Haribhai ...... 5S3 



Harmanayc Narain Singh u. Ram Gopal Aohari ..... 4^1 

Har Narain i>. Bishambhar Nath ..* ^ 

Haroon Mahomed, In the matter of ....... a37 , 273 

Harpal Singh v. Lokhraj Kunwar ....... 8 

,Har Prosad Das r. Harihar Prosad Singh (Bakshi) - r &77 
Har Saran Das v. Nandi * ... H70 

Har Shankar Part^b Singh i\ Lai Baghuraj Singh . 171, 172, 173, 176 
Ham Dalxnel (Ghamar) i. Elashi ..... ^70 

Hashim (Sayad) . Hoaoin Sha 



Hasha r. Bagho Am 



Haunmaa Dtitfe Boy B, Kishen Kishor Narayan Sing (Baboo) . 
Hayes t. Harendra Narain ...... 

Hayward w. Hayward . ...... , . 74 

Haza Hira w. Bhaiji Madan Isabji ..... . . 3a) 

. 244,263,265,304^11 



Heera Lall Roy . Bidyadhur Boy ...... ^ 

Efoera Singh , Buryar Singh ...... * t 

Helam Baai . Dnrg^ Das . ..... 

) . Ajoodhya BersJufcd . * ' ' ' '* 

^^ . . , . - ^ 



3i TABLB OF OASES CITBD, 

PAGE 

Homangini Ba*| (Sriinati) /.v Kcdarnath Kudu Gliowdhry . 80, 333, 334 

Hemchundcr Ghoso ?'. Thakomoni Debi 303 

Hfem Chimdor Sanyal i?, Sanuwuayi Debi . , . 466, 490, 41, 502 
Hcmchund Mujoomdar r. Tara Muimee (Mussamaut) * . . ,482 

Hvndotft Dabee, In the mafct&r of 544 

Hemlutta Debea i\ Ookck CJumder Gosayn 426,466 

Hnieowr Byo (Doo dera) r. Hanscowcr Bye 163 

Ht'SusntttUah (Chowduiy) v. Brijo Boondur Roy .... 175, 295 

Urtzutrain Singh r. Ram Dein Singh 9 

Tn<lAiir(wn-ntaa ^ Afzul Hossoin (Syud) S93 

Himmat Bahadur v. Bhawani Kimwar 245, 479 

Hjmnntith Boao, In the matter of 213 

Hiunulta Chowdnayn (MiLssuminaut) v. Pudoo Munoo Chowdrayn (Mus- 

summant) 364 

IfiDiunchuii v Miharaj Singh 387 

Hinmatsing Bccharsing r. Ganpatsing 211 

Him^HanajiPeraa 54,63 

fCitabai n Ufeshmibai 443 

Himkote (Bitt) *, Trikamdas , . .357 

Hiralal Ichhalal (Ma)mudar) v. Narsilal Ghaturbhajdas (Desai) . * 9 
Hira UI Mamari r. Chandrabali Haldarin . . . 309,312,314,322 

Him !La! By.hu. t. Paraaeshuir Rai 315 

HiraJal Bingfea tt, Tripnm ChAran Ray 463 

JHfeieBiUfKiMUiit)* SohanBibi 496 

HitiiNaildn^IUdhaNailatt 163,164,204 

Hiranath Kocr (Mahatani) u Bamnarayan Slog (Baboo) . . 32, 517 

Hira Panday v. Baehu Panday 7 

Hira Siiurh (Chaudhri) . Ounga Sahai (Chaudhri) . . . .371 
Ilitcndra Singh r. Rameshur Singh ....... 319 

Honamma i\ Timannabhat 83, 374 

Hoogly, Land Agents of Zillah *?. Kishnanuad Dundee . . . .571 

Hoolas Koonwer (Mussum&t} . I^Ian Singh 344 

Hoolash Koor r. Kassec Froehad 348,350 

Horeadranarain Acliarji Ghowdfiry p. Chandra Kanta Lahiri . . 544, 545 

Hod Dasi JDcbi v. Secixstary of State 570 

Borf 1*1 P. Unnsuui Kimwar 26S, 274, 279, 282 

Hossein Ali Khan r. Bhagaban Das (Mahanta) . . . .563,564 
Hiidoy Kaikti Bliattaoharjee r. Behari Lai Mookcrjeo . . .335, 336 
Hucbufc Rao Mankur v, Govind Rao Balwunt Rao Mankur . 143, 154, 157 
Hnjmu Chul v, Bhadoorun (Ranee) ....... 56 

Htillodhur Mookerjee v. Ramnauth MookerjVe 341 

Hulodhvr Sein > Gooroodoss Roy ....... 231 

Hunooman Persaud Panday r. Munraj Koonweroe (Mossamut Babooee) 284, 

285, 28% 288, 291, 293, 2M, 295, 308, 309, 478, 510 

Hunsbutti Korain . Ishri Dutfc Koer .,... 47^ 476 

Hnnsraj v. Monghibai (Bai) 

HxwadlsjKi Mookurjia t?. Muthoranath Mookurjia . 

HunJ&y Karain Sahu (Baboo) t\ Roodcr Perkash Misser (Pundit Baboo) 

306,319 
Hnrdwar Siagh t>. Luehmnn Singh ....... 347 

HurDyal-KagF. Roy Krishto Bhoomicfc .... 171,175,176 

Hurce Bhaeo Kana r. Kuthoo Koober 36 

Him?ehur Mookerjee v. Raj Kishen Mookerjee ..... 533 
Huri Das Bundopadhya r. Bama Churn Chattopadhya 419, 422, 426, 429, 430 



OF OASES 



Huri Doyal Singh tiarmana v. Grish Chunder Mookefjee . 40/465 
Hurjsh Chunder Doss v. Gouree Pershad Chatterjee . . ' . ' 256 
Hurish Chundor Mookerjee v. Mokhoda Debia . , . " 22] 256 
Hurka Shunkur v. Raeejee Munohur . . . " ' 74 

Hurkishor Das Bhooya v. Joogul Kishor gaha Boy. . 208 

Hurlall Singh v. Jorawun Singh *...,. * 262 
Hurodoot Narain Singh v. Beer Narain Singh . 30^ 305 

Huromohun Audhikareo ?. Auluck Monee Dassee . . . . * 481 

Huropershad Roy Chowdhry t>. Shibo Shunkuree Chowdhrain .* ' 26, 27 
Huro Soonduree Debia v. Doorga Doss Bhuttacharjee .... 251 

Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal .... 27,28,29,245,251,528 

Hurra Soondree Dassee t?. Chundermoney Dasseo ..... 135 

Humnath Ohatterjee v. Mothoor Mohun Goswami (Mohunt) . . . 494 
Hurronath Roy Bahadoor (Rajah) v. Rundhir Singh . . . 29] 297 
Eurrosoondery (Ranee) r. Ki&tonauth Roy (Cowar) . , , . * 103 
Hurrosundari Dabia, In the matter of the petition of . . . 544, 545 
Hurrosoondoipy Debea Chowdraneo v. Rajossuree Dabe.i . . . 302 
Hurry Ohurrv Dass v. Nnnai Chand Keyal ...... 57 

Hurry Doss Dutt v. Runjunmonoo Dossoe ...... 472 

--- , --- Vf Uppoornah Dossee ...... 473 

Hurry Mohun Rai v. Gonesh Ghunder Doss ..... 483, 402 

Hurry Mohun Roy v. Nyantara (Sreemutty) . . . . 87, 88 

Hurrymohun Shaha v. Shonatun Shaha ..... 441 y 459 

Hurronath Roy Bahadoor (Rajah) v. Rundhir Singh .... &l 

Huseni Begum v. Collector of Moradabad ....,, 577 

Hussein Miyan (Sayad) v. Collector of Kaira . . * . f . 577 

L * 

Ibrahim. Row then (Shakh) v. Muhamacl Ibrahim Rowthen S5 

Ibrahim Tharagan (Sheik) v. Rama Aiyar ..... 266, 268 

Iburamsa Rowthan v. Theruvenkatasami Naick ..... 354 

llata Shavatri v. Ilata Narayanan Nambudin ..... 78 

Imam v. Balamma . * ....... 84, 02^ 94 

Imrit Konwur v. Roop Narain Singh ...... 174; 49$ 

Inda v* Jehangira .......... 169 

Indar Kuar v. Lalta Prasad Singh , ...... 483 

Indar Kunwar (Maharani) v, Jaipal Kunwar (Maharani) 108, 113, 115, 126 
Indar PaH\ Imperial Bank ...... . . 315 

Indar Sahal (Jtfimshi) v. Shiam Bahadur (Kunwar) . . \ j ,' &&$ 
fndai: gen Singh ^ ^Carpal^Smg^,, . . v J ' ' ; ' . V '.'" 570 
I<aW . Ramasawmy Pandia Talaver 3%, 39, 62, 208, 

' 



153, W4 

277, 493 



Indro Kooer (Mussamut) v. Abdool Burkat (Sheikh) . 

Indromoni Chowdhrani v, Beharilal Mullick 

Indur Chunder Singh v. Radhakishore Ghose 

Indurdeonarain Singh (Baboo) v. Toolseenarain Singh . . 232 

Ishan Chunder Mitter v. Buksh Ali Soudagur . , . 497 

Ishen Chunder Chowdhry v. Bfrytufo Cfcunder Ohowdhry . 

Istyri Singh (Thakur) v. Baldeo Singh 5lS f 

, Israil p. Shamser Rahman . . . ' , 

,Ip!hwa* <^tin4er Surma, In the matter of ... 



Ofc CAStiS 01MD. 



Isri Dut Koer . Hausbutti Koerain (Mussumut) . . 474, 473, 502, 603 
Issur Chunder Sein v. Ranee Bossee ...... 229, 372 

Jksuri Butt Singh v, Ibrahim , ...... 30G 

Ittuni Panikkar v. Irani Nambudripad ...... 586 

lyagaru Soobaroyadoo v. lyagaru Sashama ...... 77 

J. 

Jaddo Klunwar v. Sheo Shankar Bam ....... 278 

Jadomoncy Babee r. Saradaprosanno Mookerjea ..... 472 

Jadoo Shat v. Kadumbince Dassoe ....... 269 

Jado Singh v. Ranee (Musstimafc) ....... 304 

Jadubansi Kunwar v. Mahpal Singh ....... 513 

Jadubindu Odhikarco v. Lokcnaut-h Gereo , 549, 574 

Jadu Doss v, Sutherland ......... 269 

Jadumani Basi v. Khcytramohan Shil ...... 81 

Jadunwd Bafti (Srimati) v. Crangadhar Seal .... 24G, 247 

Jadutttani 35eM (Srimati) #. Sarodaprosanno Mookerjea . . . 490 
Jadunath Singh tx, Thaktir Sita Ramji , . , . , .552 
Jagabhai Lalubhai v. Vijbhukandas Jagjivandas ..... 317 

Jagadamba Chowdhrani v. Dakhina Mohun ...... 109 

JFagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur (Maharajah) v. Hemanta Kumari Debi 

(&ani) ....... 549,556,558,563,570 

Jagana-tha v t Ramabhadra ...... 30, 251, 352 

Jaganaada v. Papamma ......... 186 

Jaganadha Raja (Sri) v Prasada Rao (Sri Rajah) . . . .500, 

Jagannath v. Champa ......... 30Q 

111 " ......... '" v. Dibbo . .., 500 

Jagan Nath v. Mannu Lai ........ 277 329 

v. Tirbeni Sahai ........ * 359 

, . . f t * 7- 
. ^ ^ k \ ],04 361 

* 



Praaad er: Sitaram . . . . ... 

i Prasad Cupta v. Rmijit Singh 16, 17, 63, 169, 170, 450, 451^ 570 
Jagann&th Raghunath v. Narayan . . 18, 19, 62, 450, 452, 453, 462 
Jagaioaath Ramji .......... 271 

Jag*aiiuad& Yit^al t. Apaji Vishau *!!!! 473 
jagw^th l*iead v. Jaikishun Prasad ... 1 1 * 483 
JTagatnarain tr. Bheo Das ....... 366 392 393 

Jagdish Bahadur v. Sheo Pertab Singh ..... ' , ' 519 

Chandra Bancrjoe v. Phani Bhuahan Mookerjee ! ! ' 454 

Dasi v. Nilmoni Gho&al ...... " 549 

Javerdas & Imdad All ...[." * * 32^ 
Jagraj Singa y. Ajudhia Prasad . *,*.,, ^ ! [ * 318 

Jagun Kooer v. Rughoonundun Lall Shahoo . ; ] * I 350 
Jal.Bansi Kunwar (Mussamat) v. Chattar Bhari Sing . " * ^75 

Gopaldas v. Harkisondas Hollochandas , ' '*" *" 



. 

Jaipal Iftditrtu' (Thafcurain) v. Indar Bahadur Singh (Bhaiya)" * * 503 
Jairam P. Kessowee J " " 442 

' * * " 



usnanj . . n o TOA 

Jairam I4ixmon ..... ..*."." 271 

Jairam Narayan Raje t?: AWram Narayaa Raje ' . o 4 

^airamNarronji w .Kuverbai ...... I 534,536,543 



TABLE OF CASSIS OITEB. xliii 

PAGE 

Jairam Nathu r. Nathu Shamji ....... 332, 35$ 

Jai Singh Pal Singh v. Bijai Pal Singh ...... 141 

Jalandhar Thakur v. Jharula Das ..... 507, 508, 575 

Jaleshar Rai v. Amrut Rai ........ 321 

Jallidar Singh v. Ram Lai * ....... 300 

Jamal Saheb v. Murgaya Swami ....... 506 

Jamal-uddin ?'. Mujtaba Husain ...... 578, 570 

Jameolah Khatoon v. Pogul Ram ....... 28 

Jamiyatram i. Jamna (Bai) ........ 465 

Jamiyafcrani Ramchandra v. Parbhudas Hathi * 322 

Jamna v. Machul Sahu ... ...... 85 

- nNainSukh ........ 294,31$ 

Jamna (Bai) v. Bhaishankar . , . . * , ,470 

Jamnabai v. Dharsey , . . . ..,.''. 5Q7, , ^^ 

--- Vm Khimji Vullubdass . . . . . . . 387, fttt 

- : -- v. fcaychand Nahalchand , . . Ill, 1% 140, 193, 108 
Jamna Das v. Bamautar Pando ........ 442 

Jamna Prasad v. Ram Partap ....... 225, 243 

Jamsotji N. Tata v. Kasliinath Jivan Manglia . . . 291, 292, 310 
Jamuua Parshad v. Ganga Pcrshad Singh ...... 303 

Janak Keshori Kuar v. Debi Prasad Singh ..... 490, 495 

Janaki Ammal r. Narayanasami Aiyar * . . 471, 499, 500, 50$ 
Janakisetty Sooryudu v. Miriyala Hanumayya ..... 469 

Jan Ali v. Ramnath Mundal ...... 579, W, 591 

Janardhan Pandurang v. Gopal . . . . . 372 

Janglubai w. Jetha Appaji Marwadi . . . . * , . . 447 

Janhabi (Musstt) v. Balbhadra Suar ....... 510 

Jankee Singh p. Bufchooree Singh . , ..... . S3S 

JaaSi^BMrott ........ * ,443 

v. Kallu Mai . . . ....... ^8 

- v. NandRam ...... 209,210,212,242,378 

Jankibai v. Shrinivas Ganesh ....... 79, 236 

- v. Sundra ........ 19, 453, 467 

Janki Dibeh v. Suda Sheo Rai ........ 110 

Janki Pershad Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh ..... $2 

Jankypersaud Agurwallah, Ex. p ........ 47 

Jan Mahomad v. Datu Jaffar ....... 24,257 

- t?. Nurudin (Syed) ....... ^>80 

Janmajay Mazumda* , Ke&hab Lai Ghos$ ..... .105 

Janokee Bas?ae . Kisto Komul Singh . * ,, * * f &W 

" 



..... 057, 

Mliifclikopadhya v. Mothuranath Mukhopadhya . 328, 
Jasoda koer v. Sheo Pcrshad Singh . . . 220, 241, 242, 
Jas Ram v. Shor Singh ......... '#7 

Jatha Naik v. Venktapa .* ^^3 
Jati Kar v. Mukunda Deb ........ ^> 7 ^ 57 * 

Jatindra Nath Ohaudhuri (Rai) v. Amrita J,al Bagchi . . . 181,193 
Jatindra Nath Chowdhri (Roy) v. Prasanna Kumar Banerji . . * 26$ 
Jaudub Chunder Ghose v. Benodbeharry Ghoso . . 222, 427, W 
Jaterbai v. JCablibai , 

v. Guyan Singh ....... 

........ 



W'V,<; 



EABLI 0? CJASKS CX$Et>, 



Jtayaiifci tfubbiaa 0. Alamelu Itagamma * 77, 79, 80, 84, 88, 89, 90, 481 
Ifcykali DeM (Srimati) t?. Shibnath Chatoerjee ..... && 

tfofcfonatn Ringh (Thakoor) t. Court of Wards , . 100, 395, 397, 398 
Jrabo Bhon Banyafo & Sundhoo (Mussamut) .... 68, 71 

Jvi-tn&th Saheo Deo (Thakoor) 0. Lokcnath Sahoe Deo - 32 

Jeowftiibai . Manoniafi Lachmondas ....... 8 

Jeewun Punda v. Sona (Mussumat) ...... 441,442 

Jekisondas v. Eanchoddas ......... ^ 9 

Jeo Lai Singh v. Gitnga Pershad ....... 279 

Jecmco (Mussumat) r. Dhurum Kooer . ..... 345, 349 

Jeriiin Laljcc r. Vecrbai .... ..... 495 

JKha (Bai) r. Haribai ......... ^ 12 

.Mhabai Xaraey f Chapsey Coovcrji ....... J 

Jejaiigarulavaru r. Hati Burma Dossji (Sri) ..... 592 

Jhabbu Singh i\ G'anga Bishan ........ 270 

Jhamrnan Kunwar r. Tiloki ....... 509,510 

Jltimaa ti Tariff .... ...... 50fl 

Jh&rala Baa . Jakndhar Thakur ...... 494,567 

JhubbooUHSahoow. Khoob Lall ...... .341 

Jhula p. Kauta Prasad ... ...... ^ 

Jhimkft Pnumt v. Kathu ......... ^7 

Jhaana tv Ranosarap ....... . . 97 

iThuowa Kuar t?. Chain Sukh ........ 328 

Jib Ul Gir (Mohunt) v. Jaga Mohan Gir (Mohunt) . . . 557, 502 
Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba (H. H. M ) v. Kamakshi Bayi Saiba (H H. M.) 328, 

387, 474 
Jiaa (Bai) p. Kharwar Jina ....... 24, 70 

Jkabliai v, Vadilal .......... 327 

Jivani Bhai r. Jivn Bhai ..... 138, 141, 142, 14^, 204 

p. Anibhafc ......... 234 



Jiwoa Singh p. Misri Lai . ........ 489 

Jnananjan Banerjce r. Adoremoney Dassee . . * 564, 565, 566, 567 
Jo4M Kai r. Basdeo Tiasad ...... ' . .550 

Jodoonatfo Bey Sircar r. Brojonath Bey ...... 333 

Jogdamba Koer 4'. Secretary of State ...... 36*, 366 

Jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun Mahapatra (Raja) v. Nityanimd Man- 

singh ...... 13,227,383,385,516,519. 

Jogendra Chunder Butt v. Apurna Basi ...... 362 

J<^fn4m Chunder Ghose t?. Fulkumari Bassi ... 93, 333, 336 
Jogendra Hath Maker]! v, Jugobundhu Mukerji * 353 

Jogendra Nath Bai r. Bakdeo Bas .... 234,343,344,351 

Jogeiadra Hath Sarkar v. Gobinda Chandra Butt ..... 567 

Jogendra Chunder Ghope t. Nobin Chunder Chottopadhya * 268 

Jogendra Chundro Ghose v. Ganendra Nath Sircar . ,93, 333, 336 
v. Funindro Beb Eoy Kut . , 278 

i Bossee v, Hurrydoss Ghose . . , .67, 88, 73 



Jogeeh Chftndra Baner joe ?'. Nrityakali Debl 
Jogesh Chtrader Bandopadiiya r. Jonabali Bepari , 135 

Jogeswar Omkrabatti i'. Panch Kauri Chakrabatti . . . 52,59 
Jogcsvvar Narain Deo ^ Earn Chmid Butt . 237,239,528 

Jogcdishury I>ebea ^ Kailash Chunder LaMry ..... 358 



TABM OF OASES CITED. 



PAGE 

Jogul Kishore v. Shib Sahai ........ 326 

Joharmal v. Eknath ......... 310, 317 

Joharmal Ladhooram v Chctram Hari Sing . 250, 275 

Johurra Bibeo ?;. Srcegopal Misser ..... 92, 274, 275 

Joitaram v. Ramkrisbna ....... 304, 521, 523 

Joonas Noorani (Moosa Haji) v. Abdul Rahim (Ha]i) ... 25 

Joseph Vathiar of Nazareth. ........ 25 

Joshi Assam, In the matter of ........ 215 

Jotee Roy v. Bheechuck Meab ........ 232 

Joti Lai (Lala) v. Durani Kower (Mussamat) ..... 390 

Jowala Buksh v. Dharum Singh ....... 24, 137 

Joy Chunder Rukhit v. Bippro Churn Rukhit ..... ' 232 

Joy Chundro Raee v. Bhyrub Ohundroo Raeo . , . 103, 117, 156 
Joy Deb Surmah v. Huroputty Surmah . ..... 557 

Joykishore Chowdhry v Panchoo Baboo ..... 178, 180 

Joykisto Cowar v. Nittyanund Nundy ..... 274,' 275 

Joymoney Dossee (Sreemutty) v. Sibosoondery Dossee (Sreemutty) . 191 
Joy Mooruth Kooer v. Buldeo Singh ...... 494, 594 

Joynarain Gin v. Goluck Chunder My tee .... 348, 349, 352 

- v. Grish Chunder Myti ...... 351 

Joynarain Sing ?;. Roshun Sing ....... . 302 

Joytara ?>. Ramhari Sirdar ...... 85, 86, 530 

Judoonath Dey Sircar v. Brojonath Bey Sircar ..... 335 

Judoonath Sircar v. Bussunt Ooomar Roy Chowdhry . 63, 438 9 441, 459 
Judoonath Tewaree v. Bishonath Tewaree ...... 337 

Juga Lai Chaudhuri v. Audh Behari Prosad Singh . * . .319 
Jugal Kishore v. Hulasi Ram ........ 267 

?;. Lakshmandas Ragfounathdas 



Jugdanund Gossamee v. Kessub Nund Gossaraee . . . . .416 

Juggendronath Banerjee v. Rajendronath Holdar . 504 

Juggernath Persad v. Janky Persad . ...... 53 

Juggernath Sawunt v. Odhiranee Narain Koomaree 89 

Juggessur Buttobyal v. Roodro Narain Roy (Rajah) . , . 564, 566 
Juggessur Sircar v. Nilambur Biswas ...... 53, 289 

Juggodumba Dossee v. Haran Chunder Dutt . ggg 

-- v. Puddomoney Dossee . . . , 555 
Juggomohun Ghose v. Manickchund ...... 28 

Juggo Mohun Mullick (Doe dem) v. Saumcoomar Bebee . .23, 58 
Juggurnath Khootia v. Doobo 3MCisser ...... 284, $02 

Juggurnath Roy Cl^o^dhry v, Kishen Pershad Surmah . . , ,57^^75, 

Juggurnath Sahaie ^Maharajah) ,?. Mukhun Koonwur (Mussi) ; . I7g 
, Juggut>,Molijni Posaee 'i SoMiieempnej/ ttossee (Mussamui) 539, S4-7, 552, 554 
Jiiggrriaiamn Singh v. Cbllector of Manbhoom ..... 429 

Jugjeevi^ iSfttiiioojee v. Deosunkur Kaseeram ..... , 4$% 

Jugmohandas IVIangaldas v. Mangaldas Nathubhoy (Sir) 28, 22v 241, 24&* 

244,2^6,249,252,327 
Jugo Bundhoo Tewaree v. Kurum Singh ..... ,26 

Jugodumba Debia v. Rohinee Debia ....... 255 

Jugol Kishore v. Jotindromohttn Tagore (Maharajah) . . . 496, 497 
Jugomohan. Haldar v, Sarodamoyee Dossee ..... 333, 335 

Jugop Lall Oopadhya t?. Manophur Lall Oopadhya .... 23$ 

i). Babaji ......... . 'ISs';,!, ' 

v * . . 



TABLB OF CASES 0ITEB. 

PAGE 

. . . s . * . 883 

^umoonn Baasya Chowdhrani v. Bamasoonderai Dassya Chowdiirani S& $06 

107, 109, 112, 167, 602 
Jumoona Persad Singh v. Dignarain Singh .... 276,300 



Jxmaruddeen Miss^r v Nobin Chunder Perdham . 
Jtmmejoy Mulliok (Chowdhry)^, Russomoyoe Dosseo 
Jiujagheri Gossamiar v. Collector of Tanjoro 
Jusoda Koonwur (Mussamut) v. Gouiie Byjonath Sohao Singh 



26,27 
. 480 
. 586 
. 345 
Jtisftoda Kooer *. Nettya UU (Lallah) ...... 214 

Jussoonclah v. Ajodhia Pershad ....... * 257 

Juawant Singh (Baboo) v, Boolee Chund ...... 202 

Jutadhari 1^1 r. Rughoobecr Persad ....... 282 

Juttcndromohun Tagore v. Gancndromohun Tagore 86, 87, 88, 240, 365, 417, 

526, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 539, 540, 541, 508, 569 

J*ala Nath v. Kulloo ........ 504,505 

Jwala Pirasad v, Protap TJdainath Sahi Deo (Maharajah) , . 302, 305 
Jye Koonwur (Miasst.) t). Bhikaree Singh ...... 372 

ilymtmee Diblah (Mussummant) n, Ramjoy Ohowdree . . . 364, 366 

K. 

Kachi Katiyana Rengappa Kalakka Thola Udayar v. Kachi Yuva Kengappa 
Kalakka Thola Udayar .... 96,259,260,341,515,518 

Kachi Yuva Kangappa Kallakka Thola Udayar v. Kachi Kalyana 

Rangappa Kallakka Thola Udayar *.... 30 
Kachu Bayaji v. Kachofaa Vithoba ....... 522 

Kader Batcha v. Kader Batoha Rowthan ...., 558 
Kagal Ganpaya v. Manjappa ........ 319 

Kahandas Narrandas, In re ........ 4, 9 

Singh t?. Roop Singh ..... 287,288,295,482 

561,562 



Kaitaeh Cbtadra Chuckerbutty v. Kashi Chandra Chucfcerbutty , . 466 
Kailaeh Chundra Adhikari v. Karuna Nath Chowdhry . . .421, 431 
Kailashi Ktmwar ?. Badri Pcasad ....... 336 

Kaithe v. Kulladasi Koundan ........ 63 

Kalahasti, Rajah of, v, Achigadu ..... 264, 324, 516 

fcaleo Chunder Chowdhry v. Sheeb Chunder ..... 100 

Kalw Churn Giri v. Golabi ....... 585^ 591 

Kaleenarain Roy Chowdhry i>. Ram Coomar Chand . 293 

Kalee Pershad Sarma v. Bhoirabce Dabee ..... 427. 439 

J^akfc Pwdo Banerjee v. Choitxm Pandah ...... 13 

Kaleo Sunkur Bhadooree v. Eshan Chunder Bhadooree . . . 246, 254 " 
Kalee Sunkur Sannyal w. Denendro Nath Sannyal ..... 330 

Kalgavda Tavanappa v. Somappa Tamangavda .... 179,190 

K*li . Gouri . ........ Q 

iv. RamChandar ....... ! 392 

$!0gfo is. Pan Kuar (Mussamat) ...... 379 

- r^^Saawal Singh ....... 503,527 

Kali Ba&sk SSn^x v. Ram Gopal Singh ...... 5H 



Kaliehaiwfoa Chowdhry u SIdbcJEiandra Bhaduri 175 

Kali Chandra Singh ft Raj^iseore Bhuddro ...... 268 



'.CABLE OF OASES OITBD, 

FAGE 

Kalicharan Gir Gossain y. Bangshi Mohan Das Baboo . . , .573 
Kali Das v. Bijai Shankar ......... igo 

Kalidas Das v. Krishna Chandra Das . . . 105, 100, 363, 371, 373, 374 
Kalidas Kevaldas v. Nathu Bhagvan ....... 269 

Kali Das Mullick v. Kanhya Lai Pundit ...... 522 

Kalika Sahoy v. Goureo Sunkur .,..., 302, 3-40 

Kalikishore Dutt Gupta Mozoomdar v. Bhusan Chunder , .172 
Kali Kishore Pal v. Abdul Karim ...... 46f$, 487 

Kali Komul Mozoomdar v. Uma Shunkur Moitra . . . . 178,181 

Kali Krishna Sarkar v. Raghunath Deb . . . 2<>4, 310, 324, 510, 517 
Kaliparshad v. Rameharan. . . . . , , . .327 

Kali Pershad Singh (Tekait) v. Anund Roy ...... 324 

Kali Shankar v. Nawab Singh ..... 302, 303, 309, 314 

Kali Sunkor Dass v. Koylash Chundcr Das s . . , . 59 

Kaliyanaramayyar v, Mustak Shah Sahib ...... 539 

Ivalka Parshad v. Mathura Parshad ....... 380 

Kalka Pershad v. Budrce Sah ....... 372, 373 

Kallapa v. Vonkatesh Vinayak ........ 300 

Kalleepersaud Singh v Kupoor Koowareo ...... 88 

Kallianji v. Bczonji . . , . , . . . ,221, 258 
Kalliyani v. Narayana * . .... 280 

Kallu v. Faiyaz Ali Khan ........ 492, 406 

Kally Churn Shaw v. Dukhee Bebeo ....... 57 

Kally Prosonno Ghose v. Gooool Ohunder Mittcr . . 194, 195, 109, 200 
Kallyprosono Mitter t?. Gopeenath Kur ...... 530 

Kalova v. Padapa Valad Bhnjangrav . , . . . . ,164 

Kalpagathachi v. GanapatM Pillai . . . , . . .89 
Kalu t. Baisu ........ * - $04 



Kalub Hossein (Hajoe) v. Mehrun Boebee (Mussumat) . . . 503, 59-1 
Kamakshi v. Nagarathnam ...... 31,462,403 

Kamakshi Animal v. Chalorapany Chettiac ..... 2S4, 300 

- v. Chidambara Beddi ..... 328, 329 

Kamala v. Bhagirathi ......... 447 

Kamalakshi v. Kamasami Chefcti * . ..... 103 

Kamalam v. Sadagopa Sami . , . . . . . .31 

Kamavadhani Venkata Subbaiya ?;. Joysa Narasingappa 199, 471, 477 y 501 
Kambinayani Timmaji v. Kambinayani Subbaraju . . . 477, 495 
Kameswarama v. Venkata Subba Bow . 312, 323 

Kameswari Sastri w. Veeracharlu ..... ^3* &4y 6$, ^ 

Kameewar Pershad (Baboo) ? .'. Bun Baha^loor Singh . 286,2^,479,510 
Kamikhaprasad Boy v. Jagadamba Dasi (SrimatI) . . . 485, 512 
E^roikya Hath Mukerjee v. Hari Churn Sen ..... 492 

Kamineymoney Bewah, In the goods of ...... 48$ 

Kamini Dasee v. Krishna Chandra Mukerjee . . . .511 

Kamini Dassee v, Chandra Pole Mundle ..... 210, 21 $ 

Kamini Debi v. Asutosh Mookerjee . ...... 540 

Kamini Debi v. Pramatha Nath Hookcrjee ...... 505 

Kanahi Ram v. Biddya Ram ....... 35, 216 

Ifc^&Tffii^Tfoft. v. Venkataratnam ..,...*. 324 
TTfl.pa>n.Tnmfl,l 2?. Ananthamathi Animal .... 

, Kandalain Raiagopalocharyulu v. Secretary of State . . 






$ABOT OE OASES CITED. 

PAGE 

askaiidaElaNodM ..... 270,283 

l HIM #* Murugammal ...... 78, S3, 97 

. Mima Bibi ........ 292 

i;. Krishna Chariya ...... 312 

Kanhaia Lai *'. Raj Bahadur ........ 281 

Kanhai Bam & Amri (Mussamufc) ....... 44 

Kanhaiya 1*1 r, Kishori Lai ........ 495 

Kaahia tp. Mahin Ml ..... .... 442 

Kaabb Lai r. Bebi Baa ......... 2 ^5 

Katthya Lall r. Kadha Churn ........ I 67 

Kanji Bavla r. Arjun Shainji ........ 7 

Kankn (Bai) r. Jadftv (Bai) ........ 80 

Karma mmal r, Virasami ......... 1*78 

Kannan r. Nilakjmdan ........ 573, 574 

Kantna, Pfeharodi v KombiAehen ...... 286,302 

K$ai*r|wlli Suryanarayana v. Pucha Venkata Bamana . . . .129 

Aiawjakaiiiiu Ammal .... 466, 477, 478 

^ Ali-i-Nabi , . . . 337,340,500 



Katwiwtt Xteb *. 'iS&M cudea Slianaal Chowdhjari . . . - 491 
Ka^ilO^^TIiakarFcaeaxi . . . ....... . , . 309 

Kftpilntttttli Sahai l)eo (Thakoor) i\ The Gorornment 265 

Karainsi S^adhowji v. Karsandas Natha ...... 20# 

Karan Singh r. Bhup Singh ...... 316,317,318 

Katedla Vijayaraghava Bcrumalayya Naidu v. Yemavarapu Sitarainayya 593 
KaiimudiUn (Munshi) v. Gobind Krishna Narain (Kunwar) 290, 471, 482, 483 
Kamivtaka Hanumantha v. Andukuri Hantimayya . . . .319 

Karoonamoyeo Babec (Sm.) v. Administrator-General of Bengal . . 87 
Karpakarabal Ammal e. Qanapathi Subbayyan . . . . " . 90 

Karsandas Natha v. Ladkavahu ...... 113,529 

Kai<mdaa Bharamsey r. Gangabai . . . 218, 223, 225, 238, 256 
, Kii^k; Cbmder CSiu^kerbutty v. 0orae Mohmx Koy ,. . . , . 481 
. Kfmmabdi Gaaesa R^tnamaiy ar ^. Gopala EatrLamaiyax 40, 121, 123, 142, 108 
KarunaMa-ir. Jai Chandra Ghosfe ... . . . 427,428 

Karuppa Goundan v, Kolanthayari ....... 6 

- a. Kumamsami Goundan ..... 385 

t>. Sankaranaryanan Chetty . 225, 241, 243, 253, 254, 

449,450 
p. Bulokam Chetti ...... 227 



Karuppa ^hevan v. Alagu Hllai ....... 465 

Kamthedatta v. Mete Pulkkatt Vassa Bevan Naxnboodri . . .374 
Kaivefenagar, Zemindar of, . Trustee of Tiramelai . 263, 264, 319, 324 
Kaeee Bhoolubh 2?. Ruttun Bibee ..... . 63 

Kaseeram Kriparam -6. Umbaram Hureechund ..... 64 

Kashee Chunder Boy Chowdhry t>. GOUT Kishore Gooho . . .441 
Kashee Mohun Roy v. Raj Gobind OhnokferWtty . . . . . 428 

Kaaheenath. Bose t% Chunder Mohun Nundee . . . . 291, 294 

Kafibeenath. Das v. Khetturmon.ee Dassee . . . . . 80^ 210 

Kasheepershad v. Bunseedhttr . . . . . . . . 189 

Kasheeehuree Bebia v. Greesh Chunder Lahoree ..... 182 

Kafiheshures Bassee v. Krishna Kaminee Dassee ..... 552 

Kashibai t?, Moreshvar Eaghunath ..... 394, 412, 413 

- ut,!XWlk .......... 146 

- ^ Ta%* .......... 184 

Kashi Chiinclcr Sen, tn tho mftttay of . , ..... 48 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Kashiuath Basak t'. Harasuudari Dasi . . 469, 471, 472, 481, 484 
Kashinath Chimnaji v. Chimnaji Sadashiv , 2B8,27ft5:U 

Kashi Prasad v. Imla Kunwar . ..... 4(*7 

Kapim Saiba v. Sabhindra Thirtha Svrami . . . * . . 5'U 
Kassee Issoree Dibbeah (Musst) v. Goluck Chtmder Uuagolee . ,431 
Kasturbai v. Shivajiram Dcvkurna . . , . , SI, 2, $3 
Kastur Bhavani v. Appa ......... 3*>9 

Kasturi v. Chiranji Lai ......... &0 

- *. Parma Lai ........ 47, 48 

Katama Nafcchiar a Rajah of Shivagunga 168, 237, 238, 249* 251, 2ft4, $1(1, 

370, 386, 450, 4(54, 472, 4M, 5l, 518 
Kateeram Dokanee v. Oendheiiec (Mussamut) . . . .46, 6J 11 

Kathama JSfatchiaf v. Dorasinga Tever * , . W, 409, 501, #03 
Kathaperumal v. Venkabai *,.*..- ^^ 
Kattania Nachiar v. Dorasingha Tevar . * , 38S, 38^ 390, 4U5 
Kattuaheri Pishareth Kaiuia Piaharody r. Vallotil Mftnukrl Narayanan 

Somay&jipad ...... 2C8 

Kaulesra P. Jorai Kasaundan ....... 214,21*1 

Kaviraja Sundara Murtiya Filial v. Nalla Naikan PiHai , * 5&4 
Kawal Nair v. Prabhu Lai ........ 348 

Kayarohana Pathan v. Subbaraya Thevan ...... && 

Kazem Ali v. Azira All Khan ... ..... ^* 

Kedar Nath (Haharaj) v. Rafcan Singh (Thakuc) ... 252, 343, 344 
Kedar Nath Banerjee v. Hari Das Chose ..... 417,431 

Kedar Nafch Dutt v. Atiii Kriehna Ghose ...... 551 

Kedar tf&tfc Boy t?. 

lwaa^ 

. . . . - - 



Kehri Singh ^ChunciLal 

' 



...... 130, I, 17*. 1W 

Kery Kolifcany v. Moncoram Kolita . . . 82, 368, 369, 405, 47 1 

Kerataaraen v. Bhobinesree (Mussummaut) ..... W* 

Kcsabram Mahapafctur v. Nandki&hor ^toapatfcur . . . 222,4^7 
Kesar (Bai) . Ganga (Bi) 
Kesatee w. Samardhaut 
Keshavan t;. Vasudevau . 
Keshavbhat e. Bhagirathibai 



Keshavlal OkdiMia , Parvalii (Bai) . . . . ' rf. 

^mtomv.(^i?^ . . . 

Rao Diwakur r, 2Wo Jnnardhun Fatiinknr . * 55 7 

dha Raman Ntrndy . . - 
Kesri ; Gaugft Saliai ..... 

Kesserbai . Valab Raoji ....... 

Kesserbai (Bai) . Hunaraj Horarji 19, 442, 451, 4S3, 454, W* 456, 460 4^ 
Kesub Chunder Ghose ?. Bishnopureaud Bose .... S62, 427 

Kesubnath Ghoee v. Hu^goviad Bose ....... *&* 

Keval Bha^vaa Gujar n, Ganpati Naraywa . * * * * 
Keyake-Ilata Kotel Kanni w. Yadatfal Vellayaogot 

l Rahman ft Gobbd Pershad . . 3 
. Govindaoharya 




I TABIil OF OASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Khodroo Ojha v. Deo Ranee Koomar (Mussamufc) . . . .262 
IChemkor v. Umiashankar Ranchhor . . . . . 37$ 63, 85 

Kheri, Deputy Commissioner of, v. Khanjan Singh . . . 297, 512 
Kherodemoney Dossee v. Doorgamoney Dossee . 535, 545 

Khoter Monce Dasseo v. Kishen Mohun Hitter .... 60,296 

Khetramani Dasi . Kashinath Das 80,210,212 

Khotterchunder Ghose v. Hari Das Bundopadhya . . . .574 

Khettermohan Muliiek v. Gunganarain Mulhck 5.35 

Khettormoni Dassi (Sm.) v. Kadumbini Dassi (Sm.) . . . 369, 373 
Khettur Gopal Chatterjee v. Poorno Cliundcr Chatterjee . . . 365 

Khettur Monee Dossee v. Kasheenath Doss 210 

Kliiarajmal v. Daim 278 

Khiiut Chunder Ghose o. Koonj Lall Dhur 256, 349 

Khiinji Jjiiram Narronji v. Morarji Jairam Narronji .... 536 

Khiraji Vassonji v. Nam Dhanji 37 

Khitish. Chandra Aoharjya Chowdhury v. Radhika Mohun Rov . . 324 

Khodabhai Mahiji v. Bahdhar Dala ' 390 

Khoja and Meraon's case 24 

Khoodeeram Chatterjee t?. Rookhinee Boistobee .... 104, 416 

Khooshal v. Bhugwan Motee 37 

Khub Lai Singh v. Ajodhya Misser 464, 481, 564 

Khuddo v. Durga Prasad ......... 370 

Khudiram Hooker] ee v. Bonwarilal Roy 66 

Khuggender Narain Chowdhry v. Sharupgir Oghorenath . . .415 
Khunni Lai (Lala) v. Gobind Krishna Narain (Kunwar) . 374, 495, 496 
Khusalchand v. Mahadevgiri .... 539, 547, 562, 564, 568 

Kkushalchand Lalchand v. Mani (Bai) 48, 50, 51 

Klmshali v. Rani . 217 

KImitun Kooer (Hussamut) v. Poona Kooer (Hussamut) . . . 544 

Kidar Natk v. Mathu Hal 307, 513 

King v. Kistnama Naick . .48 



l^irpal Karain Tewari v Sukurmom . . . . . . ' . 423 

Kirpal Singh 0. Balwant Singh 309 

Kirpa Hayee Dibeeah (Rajkoonwaree) v. Damoodur Chunder Deyb 



Kisandas ?. Rangubai 
Kisansing Jivansing Pardosi v. Moreshwar Yishu Joshi 
Kishan Lai v. Garuruddhwaja Prasad Singh . 
Kishen . Enayet Hossain 



427 
81 
283 
311 
217 
Kishen Gte'er (Mohunt) v. Busgeet Roy. ...... 486 

Kishen Kanfc Goswamee v. Purmanund Goswamee . , . .119 
Kishen Komul Singh v. Janokee Dossee ...... 257 

Kfehennxunee (Ranee) v. Oodwunt Singh (Rajah) 199 

Kishennath Roy v. Hureegobind Roy ,.,... 180, 182 

JCishen Parshad % Har Narain Singh 267, 268, 275 

Sunker Dutt v. Moha Mya Dossee . . , * 174 

(Hussumat) v. Khealee Ram . . . . . ',.'!.. 604 
(Sree Mohant) v. Coimbatoro Spinning and Weaving Com* 

, . 562 

Kishore Bop Ho^unt v. Kalee Churn Giree , 592 

Ki^or|Diili^V.MmdraDtibain 240 

JCiahori IA& *vC&tBrni l^aJ T ........ 171 

Kishori Molxim Ghose A lilonitnohun Ghose * . . . 333,334,335 
Koshori Pal v. Bhusai Bhuiya (Sheikh) .,,.., 486 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, U 

PAGE 

Kishto Soondcry Baboa v. Kishto Motcc (Raneo) . . . .522 

Kishun Pershad Chowdhry v. Tipan Pershad Singh . . 309, 313, 314 
Kissen Ghunder Shaw (Doe dem) v, Baidam Beebee . . . 23 

Kissen Lala v. Javallah Prasad Lala ....... 407 

Kisto Moyee Bassee v. Prosuniio Narain Chowdhry . . . ,496 
Knath Narain Singh v. Prem Lai Paurey ...... 305 

Koernarain Roy (Raja) v. Dhorinidhur Roy ..... 341 

Kojiyadu v. Lakshmi .......... 369 

Kolandai Mudali v. Sankara Bharadhi ...... 547 

Kolandaya Sholagan v. Vedamuthu Sholagan ..... 489 

Kolla Subramanian Chetti v. Thellanayakulu Subramanian Chetfci . . 533 
Kollany Koer (Mussamut) v. Luchmee Pershad . . . 442, 527, 528 
Komul Monee Dossee v. Alladmonee Bossee ..... 505 

Komulmuni Basee v. Bodhnarain Mujmooadar , . . . .210 

Kondappa v. Subba .......... 482 

Konerrav v. Gurrav . * . , . , . .272, 355, 356 
Koobur Khansama v. Jan Khansama ....... 73 

Koodee Monee Bebea v. Tarra Chand Chuckerbutty . . , 81, 210 
Kool Chunder Siirmah v. Ramjoy Surmona ...... 296 

Kooldebnarain Shahee (Baboo) v. Woomacoomareo (Mussamut) , 521, 528 
Kooldeep Kooer (Mussamut) v. Runjeet Singh ..... 510 

Kooldeep Narain v. Rajbunsoe Kowur . ..... 214 

Koomud Chunder Roy v. Seetakanth Roy ..... 26, 366 

Koonjbehari Bhur v. Premchand Dutt ..... 441, 442 

Koonla Kant Ghosal v. Ram Huree Nund Grameo . . . .556 

Kora Shunko Thakoor (Doe dem) v. Munnee (Bebee) . . . 141,142 
Koroonamoyee Dasee v. Gobindnath Roy ...... 505 

Koshul Chukurwutty v. Radhanath Chukerwutty ..... 247 

Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam .... 298, $10, 331 

Kota Balabadra.Patro v. Khetra Das ...... .,301 

Kotamarti Sitaramayya v. Kotamarti Vardhanamma . * . .160 
ICotarbasapa v. Chanverova ........ 4i^ 

Kotta Ramaaami Chetti v. Bangari Soshama Nayaiiivaru 263, 274, 286, 301, 

321 

ICoul Nath Singh v. Jagrup Singh ...... , ''S$d 

Kounla Kant Ghosal v. Ram Huroe Nund Gramee , . . 299 
Kovvidi Sattiraju v. Patamsetti Venkataawami . . 127, 128, 152, 156 
Koylasnath Boss v. Gyamonee Dossee ,... S62 
Kripa Moyee B$bia v. Groluck Chunder Roy ..... 171 

Kfipa Sindhu Patjoshi v. Kanhaya Aoharya. . . . * ; %$ 

Krishna v, Paramshri . ". . . ' . . .' : ^W& Wv W* 
. ..... . , - 217 

'.' 230 




Krishna Ayyangar v. Venkatarama Ayyangar . 365, 401. 403, 404, 47 
Krishna Ayyar v. Balammal ,..* 72 
- v. Krishnasami Ayyar ..... 271, 276, 29S 

Krishnabai v. Khangowda ........ *234, 330 

Krishna Chandra Choudury v. Ratan Ram Pal ..... 286 

Krishna Chettiar v. Nagamani Amrnal .,...* 276 
Krishna Beb uWoopendra Krishna Bdb ...... '^5 

Krishna Jiva Tewari v. Bishnath Kalwar ..... 279,3^ 

Ohakravarti v. Sukha Sindhu Sanyal . . * " v * i^P 

' ' " 



Krisitrm, ^a<Ja B^t i\ 



Hi tfABLE 0$ OAS^S CITED* 

PAGE 

Krishna Panda i>. Balarara Panda, 351 

Krishna Ramaya Naik v. Vasudev Venkatesh Pai . . . 276,291 

Krishna! v. Shripati . *5i 

Krishnaji Mahadev Mahajan v. Moro Mahadev Mahajan . - 245, 250 

Krishnaji Vyankfcesh v. Pandurang 16, 18, 19, 390 

Krishnama v. Poruinal 279 

Knshnamachariar v. Krishnamachariar ^27 

Krishnama Ohariar (Ticu) . Krislmafsami Tata Chariar ... 6 

Kiishnamma v. Papa ^27 

Krishnan Nair v. Damodaran Nair ^ 

Krishnanath Narayan . Atmaram Narayan 535,541 

Krishna Prasad (Babu) v. Rampershad Singh (Babu) . . . .314 
Krishnaramani Dasi (S. M.) v. Ananda Krishna Boso . 2, 535, 541, 547, 550 

Krishnarao v. Bhagwanfcrao S5 

Kiialmaroo Ramchandra v. Benabai 529, 535 

Knshnarav Jahagirdar v. Govind Tiimbak 268 

Ivmhnarav Trimbak Hasabnis v. Shankarrav Vinayak Hasal)nis . 130, 196 

Krishnasami v. Krishjoama Ohariar 6, 7 

Krishnasami Ayyangar v. Bajagopala Ayyangar 246 

v, Samaram Singraehariar , . 5, 7, 559 

Krishnasami Chetti v, Virasami Chetti 5, 7 

Krishnaaami Konan v. Ramasami Ayyar 323 

Krinhnaswami Ayyangar v. vSivaswami Udayar 587 

Krishnaswami Naidu v. Seetlialakshmi Anxmal 251 

Knshnayya v. Picliamma 403, 405 

Knshnayyan v. Muttusami 227,228,382,383,385 

Krishnendra Jfath Sarkar v. Bebcndra Nath Sarkar , . . .325 

Krlahniengar ? J . Vanamalay Jyengar . 144 

Krisfcayj^a v. J^arasimham * 352 

Kristnappa Chetty v. Bamasawmy Iyer .... 246, 349, 350 
Kri&fcobhabiney Bosaee v. Ashutosh Bosu Mullick . . . .334 
Knsto Chunder Kurmokar w. Rughoonatli Kuwnokar , . . . 256 
Krisfeo Gabind Majumdar v. Hem Chunder Chowdhry .... 496 

Kiisto Kissor Neoghy v. Kadermoye Dossee 215 

Krisfeoromoney Dossee (Sreemutty) v. Norendro Krishna Badadoor 

(Maharajah) , 529,532,534,554 

Krodesh Sen v. Kamini Mohun Sen 360 

Kudapa Venkayamma v, Narasimma . . . . . ... 536 

Kudomee Dossee v. Joteeram Kolita 63 

Kudutama v. Narasimbaoharyulu ....... 284 

Kula Chandra Chakravarfei v. Bama Sundari Dasee .... 475 

Kulada Prasad Pandey v. Haripoda Chatterjee , . 26, 72, 323, 350 

Kulada Prosad Dsghoria v. Kali Das Naik 549,554 

Kulanthai Natchear t;. Ramamani 385 

Kullammal (Doe dem) v. Kuppu Pillai 444 

Kullean Sing v. Kirpa Sing ; ififc, ^&? 9 19 

StdJ^tbtitia Koer v. Tulapal Singh . . . . ' . i '. $l> 465 
iKtill^ffeittessuiree Debee v t Dwarkanath Surmah Ohatterjee . . ' . 78 
Kutoda Ptoisad Chatterjee v. Jageshar Koer . . . .84,89,91 

Kulpomf^DossaMewahLall 347 

Itumaran w Hai^yanan 103 

Kumaraaiimi J^ad^n & Pala Nagappa Ohetti ..... 277 

Kumarasami Odayar u Snbramania Iyer ...... 495 

KumaraYelu v, Yir&nft Gfomidan - 390, 413 



TABLE OP CASES CITED, liii 

Kumla Kaunt Chukerbutty v. Gooroo Oovind Ghowdree . . 224 
Kumola Pershad Narain Singh v. Nokh Lall Sahoo . , * 204,200 

Kumud Lai Ray v. Jogendra Mohan Hay 231 

Kunchi v. Ammu 235 

Kundan Lai v. Shankar Lai 257 

Kundee Lall (Lalla) v. Kaloe Pershad (Lalla) 491 

Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajeo 240 

Kunhali Beari v. Keshava Shanbaga 316, 317, 320 

Kunhamina (Mooriyat Peetikayil) n. Kunhambi (Mooriyat Pcetikayil) . 532 

Kunhu Kutti Ammah 0, Maliapratu 308 

Kunja Lai Banerji v. Narsamba Debi 9 

Kunjamani Dassi v. Nikunja Bekari Das .... 558, 561, 570 

Kunjan Ghetti v. Sidda Pillai 278,279 

Kunwar Bahadoor v. Briudabaii 500 

Kupoor Bhuwance v. Scvukram Seoshunkur 481 

Kuppa v. Singaravelu 2Qtt, 207 

Kuppa Gurukal v. Borasami Ourukal 57IJ 

Kureem Chand Guraia . Oodung Gurain ...... 392 

Kuroona Moyee Debee v. Gunga Bhur Stirmah 67 

Kurun Sing (Rao) v. Mahomed Fyz Ali Khan . 402, 478 

Kushal (Bai) v. Lakhma Mana 522, 523 

Kusum Kumari Roy v. Satyaranjan Das . 24, 1 37, 148, 172 

Kuta Bully Viraya v. Kuta Chudappavuthamulu . . . . .360 

Kutti Ammal v. Radakristna Aiyan 413, 460 

Kuverji v. Babai 173 

Kylash Ghunder Sircar v. Gk>oroo Churn Sircar * 4*28 



' L. 

Labhu Ram v. Kanshi Ram -r ....... 209 

Lachhan Kunwar (Mussummat) i\ Anant Singh ..... 510 

Lachman Das v. Dallu ......... 281 

- v. Khunnu Lai ........ 322 

- v. Rupohand ..... ... 46 

Lachman Kuar v. Mardan Singh ...... 45, 62 

Lachman Singh v.^Sanwal Singh ...... % 344 

Lachmi Chand v. Tori Lai ......... 302 

Lachmi Dai Mohutain (Musst.) v. Kissen Lall Pahari Mahaton Gayal . 160 

Lachmi Narain v. Balaram Sahai ...... * 215 

- v. Janjki Das ..... , ' ' i ^^ 



Lachmi N&rain Prasad v. Kishan Kishore Chand . .... 225 

LacMm Kioar v. Debi Prasad . ..... , S^O 

Lade v. Sadashiva ........ 326, 346, 350 

Ladooiah (Mussumat) v. Sanvaley ...... $75, 508 

Lahar Puri (Mahant) v. Puran Nath (Hahant) .... 568, 571 

Lakhi Priya v. Bhairab Chandra Chaudhuri . . .37, 362, 372, 427, 428 
Lakhmi Chand v. Gatto Bai . . . 102,119,145,153,180,181,193 
Lakshimoni Dasi v. Nittyananda Day ...... 522 

Lakshman v. Gopal ........ . 



Lakshmaaammal v. Tiravengada Mudali .... 366, 402, 413 
Bau i>, Lakshml Ammal . . . 102, m, 179, 185, 193 



IlV TABLE Otf OASES CITED, 

PAGE 

Lakshmana Sasamallo v. Siva Sasamallayani 370 

Lakshmanaswami Naidu i\ Rangamma ^73 

Lakshman Doda Naik . Ramchandra Dada Naik 184, 244, 285, 301, 304, 339 

355, 350, 526 
Lakshman Darku v. Narayan Lakshman ...... 351 

Lakshmandas Parashram v. Ganpatrav Krishna 580 

Lakshmandas Raghunath Das v. Jugalkishore 577 

Lakshmandas Sarupchand v. Dasrat 9, 522 

Lakshraan Ramchandra . Sarasvatibai . . 84, 89, 92, 93, 95, 213 

Lakshman Ramchandra Joshi v. Satyabhamabai 78, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 

95, 210, 309, 333, 482 

Lakwhmappa i?. Ramava ... 29, 125, 136, 144, 146, 147, 156, 203 
Lakshmi v. Dada Nanaji . . . . . 41 1 

v. Kalian Sing ...- 38 

v. Subramanya 85, 185, 528, 530 

Lakshmibai v Ganpat Moroba .... 244, 359, 465, 470, 526 

v.Hirabai 443,529 

v. Jayram Hari 412 

v. Rajaji 118 

v. Ramchandra 111,113,132,155 

v. Sarasvatibai 125, 126 

v. Shridhar Vasudev Takle 179,213 

v. Vishnu Vasudev Belc 124, 126, 194 

Lakshmibai Bapuji Oka v. Madhavrav Bapuji Oka .... 98 

Lakshminayarana v. Dasu 480 

Lakshminarayana Nainar v. Valliammal . . . . . .541 

Lakshmi Shankar v. Vaijnath 184, 304, 551 

Laksman Mayaram v. Jamnabai ....... 250 

Laksmibai z?. Ganpat Moroba ........ 470 

Lala v. Nahar Singh 178 

Lai Bahadur v. Kanhaia Lai . 244,245,246,257 

Lai Bahadur Singh v. Sispal Singh ....... 330 

Lai Ckand Shaw v. Swamamoye Basi 247 

Laldas Narandas v. Motibai 256 

Lai Gajendra Nath Sahi Deo v. Lai Mathurlal Nath Sahi Deo . . 32 

Lai Kunwar (Musammat) v. Chiranji Lai 171 

Lali v. Murlidhar 141/142, 169, 170, 204 

Lali(Mnssammut)^.MurliDhar .... 141,204,205,528 

Lahtagar Keshargar v. Suraj (Bai) 72 

Laliteshwar Singh ?. Rameshwar Singh .... 264, 516, 517 

Laliteswar Singh v. Bhabeswar Singh 263 

Lalit Mohun Singh Roy v. Chukkun Lall Roy . . . 530, 532, 533 
Lalit Panday v. Sridhar Deo Narayan Singh . . . 485,511,512 

Laljeo Sahoy v. Fakeer Chand 309, 313 

Laljoet Singh v. Rajcoomar Singh . . . , 327, 332, 334, 337, 3$2 

Lalji Nensey v. Keshowji Punja 267, 275 

LaUJoet Sin&h (Bajboo) v. Raj Coomar Singh (Baboo) , , tl . <' - $^3 
JjrilWl;ft(B^lxK))w. JumaBuksh (Shaikh) . . , . , 300, 31 

Lalji toiy v. Gk>Tbrdhone Jlia 495 

Lall Natfe Miss^ v: Sheoburn Pandey ,74 

. ^Mbhuvan Motiram 323 

. Mankuvarbai 18, 135, 366, 377, 380, 386, 392, 393, 410 
! 411, 412 

Lfcllun Monee Dossee (Ranee) v. Nobitt Mohun Singh * 52 



TABLE Otf OASES CITED. Iv 

PAGE 

Lai Singh 4?. Deo Narain Singh 294, 315 

v. Pulandar Singh 281, 310 

Lalta Prasad v. Salig Ram 20-4 

Lalti Kuar (Musammat) v. Ganga Bishen 70 

Lalubhai Surchand v. Amrit (Bai) 522 

Laluchand v. Girjappa 231 

Lamb v. Govindmoney (Musst.) 435 

Latchumammal v. Gangammal 34t> 

Laxman v. Vinayak 278, 279 

Laxmana v. Ramappa 170 

Laxmipatirao v. Venkatesh 191 

Lekhraj Kooer (Mussamut) v. Byal Singh (Sirdar) .... 329 
Lekhraj Kunwar (Thakurain) v. Harpal Singh (Thakur) ... 30 
Lelanund Sing Bahadoor (Raja) v. The Bengal Government . . . 202 

Lenga Lalung v. Penguri Lalungni 31 

Limba v. Rama . . . 6 

Lingappa Goundan v, Esudasan 25, 208 

Lingayya v. ICanakamma . .79 

Loehun Singh v. Nemdharee Singh 253, 331 

Loganada Mudali v. Ramasvami ....... 492 

Login v. Princess Victoria Gouramma of Coorg 27 

Lokenath Misra v. Basarathi Tewari 5 

Lokenath Roy v. Shamasoonduroo , . . . - .180 
Lokenath Singh v. Bhakeshwar Prosad Narayan Singh .... 234 

Lokenath Surma v. Ooma Moyee Dabee 258 

Loll Soonder Boss v. Hurry Kishen Boss 477, 504 

Looloo Singh v. Rajendur Laha 291 

Lootf Hossein (Syud) v. Bursun Lall Sahoo * 291 

Lootfulhuck v. Gopee Churn Mojoomdar ...... 268 

Lopes v. Lopes 23 

Lopez v. Lopez 23 

Lotlikar v. Wagle 57r> 

Lowji v. Mithabai m 

Luchmeedhur Singh (Baboo) v. Ekbal Ali 293 

Luchmeenarain Singh v. Gibbon 368 

Luchmeswar Singh (Bahadoor) (Maharajah Sir) v. Manowar Hossein 

(Sheikh) . ' 232 

Luchmi Bai Koori v. Asman Sing 32 

Luchmi Koer v. Roghunath Bas (Chowdhry Mohunt) <& 

Luchmun Ohunder Gfeer Gossain v. Kalli Churn Singh . * . .440 
Luohmun Bass v. Giridhur Chowdhry . . . 289, 309, 313 ?17, $21 
Luchmun Lai Chowdhry 9. Kanhya Lai Mowar . . . - 160,169 
Luototttn Lall k Kohun Lali Bha$ra Gayal . . 29, 154, 155, 159, 160 

Luchmun, Pershad v. Moonnee Koonwer (Mussumat) . , .350 

Luchomun Porshad v. Bebee Pershad ^ 

Luckeenarain Mujmodar v. Muddhosodun 4< * 

Luckinaram Tagore's case 115, 197 

Lukkea Beboa v. Gungagobind Bobey 26 

Lukmeeram v, Khooshalee * 3 

Lulloobhoy Bappoobhoy v. Cassibai . . - 366,367,378,412,413 
Lutckmanen Chetty v. Siva Prokasa Modeliar .... 275, 
Lutchmeeput Singh v. Sadaulla Nushyo 
Bibi v. Nazirun Bibi 

, Hullar Row Bajee 



tfABLE OF OASES 



11 

PAGE 

Machhbai {Bai) v. Hirbai (Bai) ....... 24,110 

Madana Mohana v. Purushothama ..... 127, 130, 131 

Madan Lai v. Kiahan Singh ....... 268,282 

Madan Mohan v. Puran Mai ........ 490 

Madan Mohan Lai if. Akbaryar Khan ....... 494 

Hadarifl. MalM .......... 606 

Madavarayya v. Tirtha Sami ....... 440, 441 

Madhawa Sidhanta Onahini Nidhi v. Venkataramanjulu ... 9 
Madhavram Mugatram i. Dave Trainbaklal Bhawanishankar 411, 413, 465, 

466, 467, 468 
Madhavrao Moreshwar t\ Koshibai ....".. 441, 523 

Atadhavrav Manohar t\ Atraaram Kcshav . . . . 211, 252, 260 

Madho Das r Kamta Pas ........ 571, 572 

Madho Parshad v. Mehrban Singh .... 303, 307, 346, 347 

Madho Prasad v. Ramrattan Oir ....... 564 

Mndho Singh i>. Bindessery Roy ........ 339 

- v. Hurmut Ally . , . ... . . . 304 

Hndhub Chandra Bora v. Sarat Kumari Debi (Srimati Rani) 548, 552, 553, 

571, 574 

Madhub Ohunder Hajrah i\ Gobind Chunder Banerjee . 489 

Hodlxub Chunder Poramanick t'. Rajcoomar Doss .... 8 

Aladhuraala Dassi (Srimati) v. Lakshan Chandra Pal . . 366, 457, 464 
Madun Sudan v. Bhau ." ....... 278, 279 

Madura, Collector of, v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sathupathy 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 

19, 20, 28, 96, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 140, 199, 515 

Mogoluii Garudiah v. Narayana Rungiah ...... 324 

Maganla t?. Premsingh ........ .64 

Magnkain v, Tukaram #,...,. 279 
JiWtaWaya v. Timaya . ..... . . , . 300 

Mahabeor P&raad * Ramyad Singh . 283, 298, 30ft,' 30S, 307^ 33S, 333 

Mahabeor Pershad v. Ram Sunm ....... 305 

Mahaboer Pershad Singh v. Dumreram Opadhya ..... 292 

Hahabir Kower t?. Jnbha Sing ...... . 241, 293 

Hahabir Pershad v. Adhikari Kor ....... 510 

Mahftbir Pershad (Rai Babu) v. Markunda Nath Sahai (Rai) , . 280, 320 
Hahabir Peishad v. Moheswar N"ath Sahai ...... 280 

Mahabir Prasad v. Basdeo Singh ..... 241, 312, 316, 320 

Hahablesvar Fondba v. Durgabai ...... 118,151 

Mahableshwar v. Ramchandra ..... 213, 270, 298, 307 

Hafeabir Singh w. Bhagwanth ........ 238 

Mahadei v. Baldeo ..,.,,.,.. 495 
Mahadeo Singh v. Sheokaran Singh ....... 5X3 

Ha&adeyappa v. Basagawda ..... ... 474 

i6V Balvant v. Lakshman Balvant . , ,,...',. 38 
v. Govind Parashram 



Ha3Wpv Keshav Tilak v, Gangabai ....... 88 

aji Sidu ....... 157, igg 

^aru (Sri Maniyam) t\ Venkataratnamma Garu (Sri 

89, M, 97 



, , 
Mahaljnga v. Mariyamma ......... 380 

Hahalinga Ran v. Veraba Ghoflami ....... 592 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Mohamad Umar v. Mankuar (Must.) . . . , **!!! 

Mahamaya Bebi v. Haridas Haldar .....!* &J 

Mahantapa v. Nilgangawa . ..... \ * * in 

Mahantawa v. Gangawa ...... ! * IJ8 

Maharaj Sing v. Balwant Singh -..![ 310 311 322 
Maharani (Mnsst) v. Nanda Lall Misser . . . ] . ' ' 305 
Maharaval Mohansingji Jeysingji v. Government of Bombay . . ] 547 
Mahatab Chand v. Mirdad All ...... ] ^g 

Mahcndra JSTath Maity v. Giris Chandra Maity \ 435^ 459 

Mahendra Singh (Rajah) v. Jokha Singh . . . . \ V 32 

Maheshar Baksh Singh v. Ratan Singh . . 286,479,482,510,511 
Mahesh Partab Singh v. Birgpal Singh . . . . 86 87 88 

Mahcswar Dutt v. Kishun Singh . J06, 507, 313, 314 

Mahoda t;. Kuleani ........ * 4^0 

Mahomed v Ganapati ..... " 5 " 66j ^ m 

Mahomed Ally v. Jehangir ......... $09 

Mahomed Athar v. Ramjan Khan ...... 5g j $$1 

Mahomed Athor (Syed) v. Sultan Khan . . . \ " . * 533 
Mahomed Ismail Ariff v. Ahmed Moolla Dawood ...*.*. 554 
Mahomed Sadat Ali Milki v. Hara Sundan Bebya ] 4<)0 

Mahomed Shumsool Hooda (Moulvio) v. Shewukram 442, 501, 502, 513, 528, 

530, 511 
Mahomed Sidick v. Haji Ahmed ........ 24 

Mailathi Anni v. Subbaraya Mudaliar ...... . 2tJ 

Makhan v. Mkka . ......... j4g 

Makhan Lai t?. (3&yan Singh ....... 4$^ 4^ 

Makhun Lall Butt v. Bam Lall Shaw . * , P . . . 221,275 

" 



Bafeaji l^W ^ ,' ; ' . . 

Malltar Bliagvaat v. Natesinha Krfsfitta ...... 579 

Malji Thakersey v. Gomti ...:... 52 

Malkappa w. Mudkappa ......... 334 

Mallan v. Puroshotam* ........ m 251 

" 



...... 317,322 

Mallika t^P^JBrimaM) v. Ratanmani Ghakervati ..... 573 

Mallikai$&ia (Srimantu Rajah Yarlagadda) v. Burga (Srimantu Rajah 

Jarlagadda) ......... 261,515 

MalHkarjtina Prasada Naidu v, Durga Prasada Naidu .... 96 

Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayudu (Raja Yarlagadda) v. Dmga Piasada 

Nayudu (Raja Yarlagadda) ...... 96, ail, 1 23, 351 

Mallik Saheb v. MalHkarjtmappa ...... 487, 488 

Malubhai v. Snrsangji ......... 340 

Mamat Ram v. Bapu Ram ........ ,6 

Mami v. Subbarayar ......... 120, 122 

Manada Sundari Babi v. Mahananda Sarnakar ..... 75 

Man Bhari v. Nannidh ......... 522 

Mancharam v. Pranshankar ...... 262, 574, 575 

Manchha (Bai) t?. Narotam Das ........ 250 

Mandil Bass v. Megh Narain Babey ....... 291 

Mandit Koer (Mussammat) v. Phool Chand Lai . . . 27, 150, i5|L 
Mandodari Bebi v. Joynarayan Pakrasi ...... ,94 

Manga! (Bai) v. Rukhmini (Bai) ....... $$1? $12 

Mangala P^bi v. Binanath Bose ..... . . .,- ; 81 



Iviii EABLE OF OASES CITED, 

PAGE 

Mangaldas v. Abdul Razak . ..... ,25 

Mangaldas Natliubhoy (Sir) v> Krishnabai ...... 534 

Mangaldas Parmanandas p, Tribhunvadas Narsidas . . . .535 

Manickam Pillai v. Kamalinga Pillai ....... 500 

3Iauickbai v. Hurmasji Boraanji ....... 544 

Manijan Bibee v. Khadem Hossein ..... 57, 570, 580 

Manik Chand Golecha v. Jagat Settani Prankuman Bibi 120, 130, 131, 407 
Manika Oramani r. Ellappa Chctti ...... 03 

Haniklal Atmaram r. Manchorsi Binsha Coachman .... 545 

Manikka Vasaka Besikar i\ Balagopala Krishna Chetty . . . 567 
Manikj amala Bose v. Nanda Kumar Bosc ..... 130,532 

MamJalr. Tara (Bai) ......... 80 

Manilal Hurgovan, In re ......... 271 

Mamlal Rewadat v. Rcvra (Bai) ...... 435, 453, 454 

Manjamma v. Padmanabhayya ........ 535 

- v. Sheahgirirao ....... 163,205 

Manjanatha Shanabhaga v. Narayana Shanabhaga 237, 320, 339, 340, 343, 

353 
Manjappa Hegade v. Lakshmi ..... , . 79, 413 

Manjaya v. Shanmuga ....... 302, 352, 354 

Manjunath v. Kavenbai ...... , 142 

- v. Shankar ......... 573 

Mankoonwur i\ Bhugoo ......... 235 

Manmahini Basi 11. Balakchandra Pandit . . . , . .211 
Manohar v. Balvant ....... . 320 

Mancxhar Ganesh Tambokar v. Lakhmiram Govindram 548, 554, 555, 556, 557, 

560, 576, 577 
Manohar Lai i\ Banarsi Das . . ..... 119, 148 

Manokarani Bebi (Srimutty) v Haripada Mitter . 501, 510 

Manorama Bassi v. Kalicharan Banerjee ...... 539 

Mansha Bevi v, Jiwan Mai . ..... 97 

Maradevi k Pammakka ......,. i 2^5 

Marappa Gaundan w. Rangasami Gaundan ..... 365^ 807 

Man v Chinnammal. ...... . 333, 3^6, 390 

Marudayi v. Boraisami Karambian . . 359, 365, 366, 381, 382, 385 
Marudamuthu Nadan v. Srinivasa Pillai .... 488, 490, 491 

Haruti z?, Rama .......... 345 

Maruti Narayan t\ Lilachand ....... 283, 300 

Maruti Sakharam v. Babaji ....... 31 9^ 320 

Masulipatam, CoUector of, v. tfavaly Vencata Narrainapah 416, 462, 465, 467, 

472, 478, 480, 486, 514 
Hatadinv. Gayadin ........ 310,315,316 

Mata Pershad t;. Bnageeruthee . . . , , ... 510 
Matangim Basi v. Jagendra Chunder MulHcfc , . , .65, 67, 68, 78 
Mathura Bas v. Bhikanmal ....... 44 

Mathura Naikin v. Esu Naikin . . . . . .. 

v. Ramohaadra Rao . . . . , . 



Maiungjini {Sfapt* . Ram Rutton Roy ...... 370 

Mayanam Bhairam v. Motiram Govindram . . . . .109 477 

JtoyaslianlcaT & fiaiipaanlcai: ........ 7 

Mayna Bai % "Oitaboi ........ 4g2, 463 

McBowell and Co, v. Rti^ava Cketfcy f ...... ' 312 

* 



TABLE OF OASES CITED, 



Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan .,.. 402 - 4tt3 
Meenakshi Ammal v. Rama Aiyar ...... 9* 20*) 

Meenakshi Anni v. Appakutti . ....... * $$5 

Meenakshi Naidoo v Subraminya Sastri ..... * 53^ 

Meenakshi Naidu w. Immudi Kanaka Ramaya Koondcn 311, 316, 317, 319, 

320 
Meenatchee v. Chcdurabra Chetty ...... 24^ 333 

Meghu Rai v. Ram Khelawan Rai ....... ' 59^ 

Meherban Rawoot v. Behari Lai Barik .,..,. 358 
Meherban Singh v. Sheo Koonwer (Mussumat) ... 70, 305, 3^8 
Mclaram Nudial v. Thanooram Bamun ..... 38, 67, OB 

Holgirappa v. Shivappa . . . . - . . , 199,288/477 

Merangi, Zemindar of, t?. Satrucharla Ramabhadra Razu (Sri Rajah) 30, 31 
Merces v. Cones *.... 547 

Merryweather t>. Jones , ....... 60 

Mearaw (Musst) v. Girjammdan Tewari , . #04, 507, 509 

Mewa Koonwer (Ranee) v. Oudh Beharee Lall ..... 244 

Mhalsabai v. Vithoba Khandappa Gulve . . . . 111,135,147 

Millard, In re .......... 23, 62, 04 

Miller v. Runga Nath Moulick ...... 283, 284, 30ft 

Minakshi v. Chinnappa Udayan ........ 278 

- v. Ramanadha ..... 40,138,139,140,141,142 

-- - -v. Virappa ....... 299,301,330,303 

Minakshi Achi v. Chinnappa Udayan ....., 00 

Mil? Azmat Ali v. Mahmud-ul-nissa ....... (51 

Mitta Kunth Audhicarry v. Neerunjun AudMcarry . . . 575, 57(5 
Mittrajit Sing v. Raghubansi Sing ....... 291 

apya v. Bava? Sahab Santi Miya ....... 547, 579 

Miyaji & Ahraect Sahib (Sheikh) ...... 580, 592 

Modhoo Dyai Singh v. Kolbur Singh ..... 283, 306, 307 

Mbdhoosoodun Mookerjee v. Jadub Chunder Banerjee . 48, 50, 214, 215 

Modhu Sudan Singh (Raja) v. Rooke ...... 476, 480 

Mohabeer Pershad (Lalla) v. Kundun Koowar (Mussamut) . 23, 27, 345, 349 
Mohabir Prosad (Lala) v. Taj Begum (Mussamat) . . . .511 

Mohadeay Kooer u. Haruknarain ..... . 33S 

Mohamed Ushruf v. Brojessuree Dossee . . , . , .481 
Mohamoya Debi v. Haridas Haldar ....... 573 

Mohandas v. Krishnabai ...... 391, 404, 405, 412 

Mohan Lalji v. Govdhaa Lalji Maharaj .... 568, 569, 570 

- v, Madhsudan Lala ........ , 570 

Mohanund jMondul w. Nafui: Mondul . . , ' . . . S8f>, 485 
MoixarSiiigli^BEetSiiiglt , ...... 539,551,556 

MoJjjenc^ tfd&j: Biswas v. Shamsunnessa Khatum . . . 494 

MohendroloU Mookerjee v. RooMney Babee . . 116, 117, 129, 156, 17$, 177 
Mohesh CJhunder Bose v. Ugra Kant Banerjee . . . , , , 48& 
Mohesh Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Koylash Chunder Chuckerbuity . 555, 581 
Mohesh Chunder Dhai v. Satrughan Dhal . . . 32,260,518,519 
Mohesh Chunder Roy v. Chunder Mohun Roy ..... 371 

Mohesh Narain Moonshi v. Taruck Nath Moitra .... 103, 169' 

Mohim Chunder Sanyal v. Kashi Kant Sanyal ..... 440 

, Hohima Chunder Roy v. Burga Monee .... 7i, 75, 444 

Mohima Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Ram Kishore Acharjee Chowdhry . ' 1 4$& 

1 ,- J^Mma Ghunder Roy Chowdliuri v. Gouri Hath Bey Chowdhuri . 49% 49S 



Ix TABJOB OF OASES CITED. 

PAGE 

MohrooKoooree(Musst.) v Gunsoo Koooroo (Musst.) .... 349 

Mohan Bass v. Lntchman Bass 576, 577 

Mohun Gktfr n. Tota (Mussumat) 80 

Mohunkoowur (Mussaraut) v. Zoramun Singh (Baboo) . . - .476 

Mohun Lall Khan v. Siromunnee (Kance) 424 

Mahun Pershad Narain Singh v. Kishcn Kishore Narain Singh . 451, 456 
Mohun Sing t\ Chumun Rai ....... 382 

Mokhada Bossec v. Nundo Lall Haidar .... 81, 207, 212 

Mokoond Lai Singh v. Nobodip Chunder Singha . . . 213,214,215 
Mokoondo Lall Shaw v. Gonesh Chunder Shaw .... 326, 533 

Mokrund Deb Raekut i?. Bissessuree (Raneo) 56 

Moknnda Lai Chakrabarti v. Monmohini Bebi 425 

Mokundo Lall Hoy i\ Bykimt Nath Roy 180 

Jttonclaldni Dasi i\ Adinath Bey 115, 127, 193, 194 

Monemothonath Bey r. Ononthnath Bey . 106, 149, 205 

Mongbyr, Collector of, ?\ Hurdai JSTarain Shahai .... 300, 319 
Montana Kolita v. Kerry Kolitany 18, 82, 336, 368, 374, 464, 465, 472, 499 

Monsoor All v. Ramdyal . 46 

Moola v. Nundy . " . . ' 65, 72 

Moomah (Mussamut) v. Teekno (Mussamut) 237 

^loonsharanx Chakravarty v. Gonesh Chandra Chakravarty . . . 353 
^loorshedabad, Collector of, v. Shibessurce (Ranee) .... 569 
Moosa Haji Joonas Noorani v. Abdul Rahim (Haji) , . 24, 25, 450, 453 

Moothoosawmy Naidu v. Lutchmydavumnaah 136 

Mootia Moodelly v. Uppen 201 

Morarji Cullianji v. Nenbai 550 

Moro Narayan Joshi v. Balaji Raghunath .... 170, 178, 179, 199 
Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesh Vithal . . 223, 226, 227, 344, 348, 349, 350 

Morrison v, Versohoyle 275 

Morun Moee Bebeah v. Bejoy Kishto Gossamee .... 143, 181 

Motee Singh v. Booluth Singh 215 

Motilal Lalnbhai v* Ratilal Mahiputram . . . . .470 

Motilal Mthalal v. Advocate General of Bombay .... 442, 529 
Motilal Prannath v. Kashi (Bai) .... . 96 

Moti Raiji v. Laldas Jibhai 490 

Motiram Suocram v. Mayaram Barkatram 454 

Motivahoo (Bai) v. Mamoobai (Bai) 526, 534, 540 

Motivahu (Bai) v. Mamubai (Bai) 533, 550 

Mouji Lai v. Chandrabati Kumari (Musammat) . . . .34, 35, 62 

Mozaffer AH v. Hedayet Hossain 594 

Mrinalini Basi v. Abinash Chandra Butt 473 

Muchoo v. Arzoon Sahoo 68, 69, 70, 216 

Muddttn Gopal Lai (Lala) v. Khikhinda Koer (Mussumat) . 229, 245, 371 

Muddun Gopal Lai v. Gowrunbutty (Mussanmt) 309 

Muddun Gopal Thakoor v. Ram Buksh Pandey . . . 244, 249, 307 

Muddun Lai v. Komal Bibee (Sreemutty) 553 

Muddun Thakoor v. Kantoo Lall .... 291, 316, 317, 320, 321 
Mrad&oobnn Bass (Mohunt) v. Hurey Kishen Bhunj . . . 415, 416 

Mudit Haiayan Singh v. Ranglal Singh 271^ 351 

Muiiammad Abdullah Khan t?. Kallu 579 

Muhammad Askari v. Radhe Ram Singh .... 267, 270, 282 

Muhammad t?. Ahmed (Sayed) 6 

Muhammad Hasan (Syed) v. Nazar Muhammad (Kazi) . 587, 588 
. Bipchand 320 



TABLE OF OASES CITED* bd 

F40E 

Muhammad Jaf ar v. Muhammad Ibrahim . , 5^ $>2 

Muhammad Muzamil-ullah Khan . Mithu Lai ..... 314 

Muhammad Siraj-ul-Haq v. Imam-ud-din . . . . 585, 590, 591 

Muhammad Umar Khan v. Muhammad Niaz-ud-din Khan , . . 108 
Muhammad Sadik v. Khedan Lai ...... 233, 207 

Muhesh Doobey v. Kishun Doobey ....... 345 

Mukta v. Dada .......... 509 

Muktakasi Debi v. Ubabati ........ 348 

Mukunda Lai Chakravarti v. Jogcsh Chunder Chakravarti . , .353 
Mula v. Partab ...... t 370 

Mulchand Kuber v. Bhudia ....... 30, 51 

Muljibhai Narbharam v. Patel Lalchmidas ...... 494 

Mulji Bhaishankar v. Bai Ujam ..... ... 81 

Mulji Purshotum v. Cursandas Natha ....... 410 

Mulji Thakersey v. Gomti , ..... $# 

Mullakal v. Mada Chetty ......... 479 

Mulraz Lachmia v. Chalekany Yencata Kama Jaganada Row . 83, 530 
Munbasi Koer v. Novrutton Koer .....,, 307 

Muncherji Pestonjee v. Narayen Luxamanjce '. 527 

Munda Chetti v. Timmaju Hensu ....... 380 

Mundoodaree Dabee (Sree Moottee) v. Joynarain Puckrasee 97 

Mun Mohinee Dabee v. Soodamonee Dabee ...... 257 

Munia v. Puran .......... 441 

Munnalal Chaodri v. Gajraj Singh ....... 477 

Munshi Bam v. Gainda Mai ........ 349 

M^ippidi Papaya v. Ramana ........ 324 

Murari v. Suba .......... 6, g 

Murari Lai v. Kundan Lai . . . . ..... 2Qi 

Muwi Vithoji . Hukund Shiraji Naik Golatkar . , , $2J t 34^ 

Mttpswrji Golraldas ^ Panratibhai ..... * \ . ^ $7i 

Murarrao t. Sitaram .......... 354 

Murugappa Chetti v. Nagappa Chetti ....... 151 

Murugaya Maniyakaran r. Palaniyandi Maniyakaran .... 343 

Murugayi v. Viramakali ........ 370, 

Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara .... 

Muteeoollah (Sheikh) v. Radhabinode Misser ..... 48$ 

Muthappudayan v. Ammani Ammal ...... 17, 448 

Muthayya Rajagopala Thevar v. Minafcshi Sundara Naohiar . . .189 
Muthoora Boss v. Kanoo Beharee Singh . . . .291, 293, 296 

Muthoora Koonwaree u. Bootun Singh ...... , %$& 

Muthu v. Gangathaora . . . v . . ' 585 

Muthu Amma a Gopadan . . . . . . . . . 235 

...... 44 

i Ammal v. Chandra Sekhara Ayyar .... 442 



ti v. Ettapasami 

Muthuraman Chettiar v. Ponnusamy Udayar ; 340 

Muthurukaruppa Pillai v. Sellathammal ...... |41 

Muthusamier v. Sreemethanithi Swamiyar ..... 562, $6$ 

Muthusami Mudaliar v. Masilamani ... 20, 39, 58, 59, 62, 5Q 

- - v. NaJlakulaaitha Mudftliar ..... 344 

MfctfouBwami Mudaliyar v. Sunambedu Mttthiakamaraswami Mudaliyar $7<J f 

392, 398, 401, 403, 404, 40#^ 

Kuthuveera Mudaliar v. Vythilinga MudaHar . . . 48% ^60 , p 

MufeB4di Lai ^.Kundan Lai . . . , 113, 114, 117, 128/133 ;' 

" '' ' ' ' 



Ixil EABIiE OF OASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Muttammal v. Kamakshy Ammal ***,, 82, 83 
.' v. Vengalakshmiammal . , * . . . ,390 
Mutta Vaduganadha Tevar v. Dorasingha Tevar . 30, 389, 390, 465, 515 

Muttoyan Chetti v. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinna Tambiar , . .243 
Muttayan Chettiar v. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinna Tambiar , . 243, 321 
Mutteeram Kowar v. Gopaul Sahoo .... 289, 480, 481, 513 

Muttia v. Virammal 90 

Muttuchidambara v. Karuppa 358 

Muttukannu v. Paramasami 163 

Muttu Kamalinga Sotupati (Rajah) v. Perianayagum Pillai . . 560, 568 

Mufctusami v. Muttukumarasami 398, 401 

Mutfcusamy Jagavira Yettapa Naikar v. Venkatasubha Yettia . ,209 
Mutfcusawmy Jagavera Yettappa Naickcr v. Vcncataswara Yettaya 208, 209, 

228, 382 

Muttusvami Gaundan v. Subbiramanya Gaundan . 266, 355 

Muttuvaduganadha Tovar v. Pcriasami . . . 389,516,518,520 
Muttnvaduganatha Tovar v. Periasami , 365, 389, 518 

Muttuvilaya t>. Parasakti 372 

Myna Boyoe v. Ootaram . , . . . . , . ,25 



N. 

Nabakumar Haldar v. Bhabasundari Dobi 485 

Nabin Chandra Saha v. Hem Chandra Ray 487, 497 

Nachiappa Chettiar v. Chinnyasami Naickor .... 264, 324 
Nafar Chandra Kundoo v. Ratan Mala Debi .... 534, 542 
Jtfafar Chandra Pal Chowdhury v. Kanimi Kumar Lahiri . . . 494 

Nagabhushanam v. Seshammagaru X04 

, Nagalmgam Pillai v. Ramachandra Tevar .... 244, 245, 249 

Nagalinga 3yCudaU v. Subbiramanaya Muda 327 

Hagafotofaqiee Ummal . Gopoo Nadaraja Chetty . . .183, 298 
Hagamma v. Vicabhadra . . . , . . , . 78, 82, 8$ 

Nagappa XJdapa v, Subba Sastry f ' 100 

Nagendra Chandra Bey ?>. Amar Chandra Ktindu .... 275, 276 
Nagoixdra Mohan Roy v. Pyari Mohan Saha . . . . ' 303 

Nagendra Nath Mukerjee v. Probal Chandra Mukerjoe .... 567 

Nagesh v. Gurarao 340,367,368 

Nagiah v. Venkatarama Sastrulu 29 ? 3^0^ 3^1 

Nagindas Bhagwandas v. Bachoo Hurkissondas . , . 15, 188, 450 

Nahalchand v. Bai Sheva 75 

Nahalqhand Harakchand v. Homchand 412 413 

Naifcram Lall v. Soorujbuns Saheo . ^* 506 

Najju Khan v. Imtiaz-ud-din 2$5 

Naku Amma v Raghava Monon ] 235 

Nalini Kanta Lahiri v. Sarnamayi Debya ; . . 1 $5^ 

Nallanna v. Ponnal [ TO '4X3 

3jfa3J|>a Eeddi u. Balammal '" ' ''" 3^330 

NaEatambi Chetti (Rayadur) v. Mukunda Chetti (Rayadur) ". 242, 253*, 285 
Nallayapjaa Pillian v. Ambalavahana Pandara Sannadhi . . 563^ 565 

Namasivaya Chetti v. Sivagami [ . ' 406 

Namaseyayam Pillai v. Annammai Ummal ... 47 214 

Nanabhai v. Oirdhariji (Shriman Goswami) . . .* ' . *570 

Nanabhai Ganpatrav Dhairyavan v. Aohratbai . . * 243,244,259 
" Va^udev . , 47,48,49 



TABM3 OF CAtflSS CITED. 



Nanabhai Vallabhdas . Nathabhai Haribhai , 352 

Nanaji Utput (Bhau) v. Sundrabai . 27, 28, 30, 388 

Nana Narain Rao v. Huroo Punth Rao .. 240 
Nana Tawkor v. Bamachandra Tawkor . ..... 381 

Nanda Lai Boy v. Dhirendra Nath Chakravarti 1) 

Nand Kumar v Badha Kuari ........ 494 

Nand Bam v. Bhupal Singh ........ 297 

- v. Mangal Sen ......... 285 

Nandi Singh v. Sita Bam ........ 304, 540 

Nanhak Joti v. Jaimangal Ohaubey . . . . . .281 

Nanhi v. Gauri Shankar ......... 306 

Nani (Bai) v. Chunilal ....... 141,142,144 

Nanja Pillai v. Suvabagyathachi ....... 451 

Nanomi Babuasin (Mussamut) v. Moduli Mohun . . 244, 316, 317, 321 
Naraganti Aohammagaru v. Venkatachalapati Jvtayanivaru . 252, 253, 57S 
Naragunty Lutohmeedavamah v. Vengama Naidoo . 220, 221, 260, 204 
Narainbati v. Bamdhari Singh ...... . 478, 485 

Narain Das v. Brindabun Das ........ 572 

- P. HurDayal ........ 304,311 

- p. Tirlok Tiwari ........ 463 

Narain Dag (Lala) v. Bamanuj Dayal (Lala) . . . 141 

Narain Dass (Bai) v. Nownit Lai ....... 300 

Narain Dhara v Bakhal Gain ....... 38, 423 

Naraini Kuar w. Chandi Din ...... 380, 398, 402 

Narain Khootia v. Lokenath Khootia ...... 224, 265 

Narain Mai v. Kooer Narain Mytee ...... 178,179 

Narain Persad Mytee v. Boodur Narain Munglo ..... 553 

Narain Prasad v. Sarnam Singh ....... 313, 314 

NaranaMaJyai. Vasteva Karanta ...... .400 

Naranbhai Vaghjibai v. Banchod Premchand ..... 233 

Naranji v. Moti .......... 267 

Narasammal v. Balaramacharlu ..... 13, 31, 44, 141, 201 

Narasanna v. Gangu ........ 164, 462, 463 

Narasayya p. Venkayya ....,.. 447, 46^ 

Narasimha v. Venkatadri ........ 469,470 

Narasimha Chari v, Gopala Ayyangar ....... 566 

Narsasimha Oharlu (Samudrala Varaha) v. Vcnkata Singaramma (Samu- 

drala) .......... 245,359 

Narasimha Bazu v. Veerabhadra Bazu . . . . .160, 363 

Narasimha Thatta Aoharya v. Anantha Bhatta ..... 573 

Narasimham v* Ma^bAyapi^ptdm . . . . . . . - 466 




564,565 



z?. Klaainan ....-* , * 533 

& Political Agent Sawantwadi * 284 

v. Bajaram ......... 27 ^ 

^.Satvaji .......... & 

v. Vonkataoharya Balkrishnacharya * * * 312 



. Krishna ....... 75,255,43$ 

-t>.BamaIinga ...... 53,285,289,350,$$ 



Norayana Aiyar . Bama Aiyar ..... > , 

? Kum^ra^mj M^aljar , . * , ^ ,, 



YABMB OF (IABBB CITED. 

PACK 

N*raqr*nft 'Cbwj* r, fttoo Krishna .,.,. $09,317 
r. I^vlcalimq-naa ........ 558 

i r. Kuppuftami ....... 134, 135 

tv Eamasarai ,...*., 185 
i r. Ramidas Hudali 277, 321 



Nftt*yanftft*mi Naick ?\ Mangammal ...... 122, 124 

Ndrayaiutarami Chetti r, Anmachala Chetti ..... 530 

Narayan Ayyar r. Lakfthm* Ammal ...... 345, 386 

Kamyan iWbaji ft NMU* Maaohar * 19, 32, 112, 258, 352 



Narajan "Bhfwii r, Irving Bliarti ..... * . 36 
r. Aaaji l>w*hpan(!o ...... 255 

Ni ? 4 . A*lmiaitrator-(<cnera! of Bengal .... 86 
yun Jninvnnath Dikhit r. Vanudco Vishnu Bikshit . . . 260 

Ramrhamlra Pant r. Ramabai . 81, 82, 89, 95, 96 

Damodar t,\ Balkrishna Mahadeo ..... 315 
Krblinaji fswlaehiv ..... 6 

. %!mko Narayan . . 70,77,78,79,84,89,^,511 
Nan>ndta Kth Baimgi w. IHna Nath Ba ...... U2 

KawiMba Katli Pahaii r. Ram Gobind Pahari . . , . * 9& 
jSTarhar f. Bhau , ........ 18 

Narhar Govinti Kulkarni xr. Narayan Vithal ..... 150 

Karhar Singh r. Birspnath Kuar ........ 87 

Narwlar Bahadur Singh r. Achal Ram ...... 518 

Karmsicla (Bai) r. Bhagwantrai ....... 453, 454 

Karo n Paragowda . ..... 298, 305, 308 

Xarotam r. Xanka ......... 75 

JfAtottam Jagjiwan r. NaimGdaw Harikfeandas . . 184, 249, 298, 530 
Namajkpa TJngappa r. Sakharam Krishna ...... 466 

Kar*iiabhat r. Chcnapa ......... 300 

Kamingh Mfera r, Lalji Hihra ..... ... 322 

mtaayyafi r. Ponnusami ..... 3iO 312, 317^1^, 3^2 

Nat<?Marmmal . Oopalakriahna . . , . ^ 

Natesa . Ganapatti ......... 590 ? 593 

Nathft Hari r. Jamni ......... 4$$ 

Nathaji Kiishnaji r. Hari Jagoji ....... ^4,7 

Nathabftl Bhailai v. Javher Kaiji ..... . .71,75 

Xathu w. Ktmian Lall ......... 289 

Nathubhai Bhitajram r, Hausgavri (Bai) ...... 342 

Xathu Lai i?. Lala -....... 279 

RaOm Lai ChowOhry r. Chadi Sahi ...'."." 302,315 
^atlm Rai p. Bindayal Rai ........ 290 

Katjfeu Velji tr. Kfeaw]i ..... '.!".! 7 

Xatimni Mahtott t?. Maaraj Mahton .,...".'," 267 
Katjhwi Sahu A Baijnath Prasad ....."! 308, 323 

Nat2rai*m i?. Shoma CHhagan ...... . 290 

Katmji ICrishuAji r, Hari Jagoji ...... " 199 

Katifcu Siagh . (Jukb Siagh ...... * ] * 169 

Kavafeam Atwaram r. -Nandkishor Shivnarayen . " 407 

Nfcvnji Kankji Wadia r. Bastur Khar^edji Hanoharji ] 579 

Kawal $ia#fa. v, Bbrngwaa Singh ...... ' . 330 

N. Chandvaaefcliaradu r. N. Branxhanna ..... ! 106 

Ncelkaunt Rai *. Munteo Chowdraoix ....].*] 339 

Jfeelkisto Deb Brmoixo r. Beerohunder TJhakoor 29, 221, 264, 376, 427, 519 



TABLE OF CAS13S CUED. 



Nchalo i'. Kishen Lai ........ ^ 

Nellai Kumaru Chetti v. Marakathainmal .... 433, 440, 444 

Nemchand v. Savaichand ...... ... 8 

Nepenbala Debi y. Sitikauta Banorjee ...... ".25 

Neti Rama Jogiah v. Vonkatacharulu ...... #77^ 579 

Nhanee v. Hureeram Dhoolubh ........ 353 

Nzdhoomoni Debya v. Saroda Pershad Mookerjee ..... 205 

Nihal Khan v. Hur Churn Lall ........ 475 

Nilamani Patta Maha Devi Garu (Sri Gajapathi) i\ Radhamani Patta 

Maha Devi Garu (Sri Gajapathi) ..... 327, 328, 387 

Nilcomul Lahuri v. Jotendro Mohun Lahuri . . 104, 105, 198, 362 

Nilmadhub Boss v Bishumber Doss .... 100, 176, 191, 102 

Nilinadhab Mitter v. Jotindra Nath Mitter ..... 212, 273 

Nihnoney Bhooya v. Gunga Narain Shahur Boy ..... 255 

Nilmoney Singh Deo v. Baneshur ...... 207, 208 

Nilmoni Singh (Rajah) v. Bakranath Singh .... 2CO, 2C1, 324 

Nilmony Singh v. Jagbandha Roy ....... 566 

Nilmony Singh Deo v. Hingoo Lall Singh Deo ..... 211 

Nimaye Churn Pojaree v. Mooroolee Chowdhry ..... 554 

Ningareddi v. Lakshraawa ........ 85, 285 

Nirmal Chander Bandopadhya v. Saratmoni Debya . . . .544 

Nirod Mohini Dassi v. Shibodas Pal Dawisi ...... 574 

Nissar Murtojah v. Dhunwunt Roy (Kowar) ..... 385 

Nistarini Dasi (S.M.) v. Makhanlal Dutt ..... 95, 96 

Nistarini Dassi v. Nundo Lai Boao ....... 534 

Nittanund Murdiraj v. Sreekurun Juggeraath Bewartah Patnaik . .519 
Nitradaye (Ranee) v. Bholanath Doss ....... 146 

Nittianand Ghose v. Krishna Dyal Ghose ..... 153, 175 

Nittokissoree Dossee (Sreemutty) ^. Jogendro Nauth Mullick . 76^ $7, 96 
Nity Gopal Sircar v. Nagendra Nath Mitter Mozumdar. . . ^5i4, 545 
Nityo Laha v. Soondaree Dosseo ...... 77, 78 

Nobin Chundor Banerjee v. Ronicsh Chunder Ghose .... 8 

Nobin Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Guru Persad Doss .... 509 

Nobodip Chundro Dob Bunnun (Rajkumar) v. Bk Chuudra Manikya 

Bahadoor (Rajah) ......... [67 

Nobokishore Sarma Roy v. Harinath Sarma Roy .... 486, 490 

Nocury Lall Chuckerbutty v. Bindabun Chunder Chuckcrbntty . . 232 
Noferdoss Roy v. Modhu Soondari Burmonia ..... 490 

Nogendra Nandini Dassi v. Benoy Krishna Deb . . 360, 446, 53% 556 
Nogendro Chundro Mittro t;. Kisben Soond^ry Bossee (Si?eeiBHtty} , 

' 



i 

Norendraiiath Sircar i?. Kamalbasijai Dasi . . * . . . 543 

JSfo^b |Ui ri Bd^amtttee Koowar ....... 103 

Kdwbut ISinglx v. Lad Kooer (Mussumat) ..... , * , $& 

Hawlaso Kooeree (Mussamut) v. Lalljee Modi . * ; ( 27^;273 

Kowruttun Kooer (Mussamut) v. Gouree Dutt Singh , . , ^ 291 

Nubkissen Mitter v. Hurris Chunder Mitter ...... 575 

Nubo Gopal Roy v. Amrit Moyee Dossoe ..... 78, 96, 97 

Nufifer Chunder Banerjee v, Guddadliur Mundle ..... 293 

Hufur Mitur v. Ram Komar Chuttoorjya ...... 466 , 

,' Hu^ender Chunder Ghoae v. Kaminee Dossee (Sreemutty) 

) v. Rughoonath Narain Dey . 
(Jooho v. Bugola Soonduree Dossee 



] xv j l^BtB 03f OASES CITED, 

Kanec Earn Towary 
eeBebco 
Tapeedas 



. Lloyd 
Hankoo Singh ^PurmDhun Singh ..... o^ 

HunnaSettU Chidaraboyina 

Kunnu Mcah u- Kxishnasawmi . ....... T 

Hurendro Narain Boy *. Men Chunder Son , - * 

Nuraiagh0a8(Rai}.NaraiaI)ass(Rai) .... 221,249,255 

KaraimgliKarain^BhuttunLaH ..... 100,103,380 

2? usserwanjee #. Laxman * * ...... 

0. 

Odhutl Bukbh (Cazee) i'. Bindoo Basliinee Dossseo .... - 284 

Obhoy Churn Ghose y. Gobind Ghunder Dey 222, 258, 259 

Odifc Karain Singh r. Dhurm Mahtoon .,... 501 
Olati FolliAh Oltetti v. Varadarajulu Chotti ..... 466,500 

Omcd Rai . Heoralall ......... 294 

Omrit Koomaree Dabee v> Luckhee Narain Ohuokerbutty , 377, 418, 420 
Oiuuthoonnissa (Mussamut) i\ Puresmun Narain Singh . * 323 
Ondy Kadarun v. Aroonaohclla , ..... 1^7 

Oodey Singh (Koocr) v. Phool Chund ..... 75, 475, 484, 513 

Oodit Narain Singh v. Hudson ...... 266 

Oodoy Chand Jha v. Phun Montse Debia , ..... 502 

Oodoyohum Mittor, In the matter of . * . .4*29 
Oojulmonee Dossee v. Sagormonee Dossee ...... 47^ 

Oojul Hunnee Dossce v. Jygopal Ghowdhroe ..... S7 

Coma Dibya p. Rammuni Dibya . - ,374 
Ooman Butt v. Kunhia Singh * ...... 158, 159 

Oomrao Sing v, Man Koer . . . . f . ^ . 95 

Oomrao Sing (Thakoor) v. Mchtab Koonwer (Thakooranee) . 164, 155, 171 
Oorhya Koocr (Mussamut) v. Rajoo Nye Sookool ..... 392 

Ootura Chunder Bhuttacharjeo v. Obhoy churn Missor ... 26, 27 

P. 

Pabltra Dasi r. Damudar Jana . , ..... * 442 

jPadajirav ?. Ramrav ...,.., 126, 169, 170 
Padam Kumari v. Suraj Kumari ...... 27, 38 

Padarath P. Bam Narain Upadha (Pandit) . . . . .511 

PfKlarath Singh v. Raja Ram ........ 305 

Padmamani Dasi (Srimati) v. Jagadamba Dasi (Srimati) . 338, 352, 354 
Padmavati, Ex parte ..... * , . . 29 

Pahaladh Singh v. Luchmunbutty (Hussamut) ..... 352 

Paigi ?. Sheonarain ....... 65, 67 ? 69, 71, 73 

Patoiappa Ghotty v. Deivaaikamony Pandara , , * 280W 4 ,W 
Palaai Gotmdaix v. Rangayya Croundan ,..,., 282 
Palani Konan e, Masa Konan ....... 300, 354 

Palanivelappa ICaondan a Mannara JSTaikan , 285, 301 

Panohaaaaclayyan t?. Nikkandayyan ,,..... 261 

Panchappa v. Sauganbasawa ....,., 132, 137 

Panchcowree aCahtooa v. KaJeechum ..,.,. 465,478 
PanchcowrieMullv*Cfeumroo3aIl , 553,576,591,594 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Pandaiya Telavcr v. Puli Tclaver .... 38, 39, 208, 382 

Pandarungy Annachariyar v. lyathory Mudaly 589 

Pandharinath Vishvanath v. Govind Shivram 470 

Pandurang Anandrav v. Bhaskar Shadashiv . . ,300, 331, 354, 350 

Pandurang Balaji v. Dnyanu 507 

Pankhabatti Chandhurani v. Nani Lai Singh 500 

Pannalal Seal v. Bamasundari Dasi (Srimati) .... 474, 483 

Papamma v. Appa Rau 136, 147, 174, 189 

Paparayudu v. Rattamuna 512, 513 

Parameshwari Surma v. Empress 213 

Paraineswaran v. Shangaran 2<>8 

Parami v. Mahadevi 82, 83, 529 

Paran Chandra Pal v Karunamayi Dasi . . . . , .297 
Parasara Bhattar v. Rangaraja Bhattar , . .120, 121, 122, 123, 129 

Paras Ram v. Sherjit , 232 

Parbati v. Muzaffar Ali Khan 234 

v. Sundar 141 

Parbati (Musammat) v. Naunihal Singh (Chaudhri) . . . 329, 345 
Parbati Biboo (Musst) v. Ram Barun Upadhya . . . 551 , 552 

Parbati Churn Deb v. Ain-ud-deen ....... 352 

Parbati Dasi v. Baikuntha Nath De (Raja) 254, 257 

Parbati Kumari Debi (Srimati Rani) v. Jagadis Chundcr Dhabal 13, 20, 27, 

236, 262, 517 
Parbati Kunwar (Musammat) v. Chandarpal Kunwar (Rani) . 32, 389, 517 

Parbhudas Lakhmidas v. Shankarbai 358 

Parbhu Lai (Lala) v. Mylne 119, 169, 172, 486 

Parbutty Coomar v. Sudabut Porshad 221 

Parekh Ranohor v. Vakhat (Bai) ,495 

Pareman Das v. Bhattu Mahton $09, 312 

Pareshmani Dasi v, Dinanath Das 371,373,374 

Pariohat (Rajah) v. Zalim Singh 208, 382 

Parikh Girdarlal v. Thakor Fatehsing 300 

Parmanandas v, Parbhudas , ....... 407 

Parmappa v. Shivdappa ........ 390, 451 

Parmoshar Rai v Bishoshar Singh 105 

Parmoshwar Dubey v. Gobind Duboy 272, 273 

Parot Bapalal Sevakram ?;. Mehta Harilal Surajram , 377, 401, 402, 404 

Parsidh Narain Singh v. Hunoman Sahai 280 

Parson (Bai) v. Somli (Bai) 241,254,449,450 

Parsotam Oir v. Dat Gir 564 

Parsotam Rao Tantia v. Janki Bai 244, 347 

; v. Radha Bai 352 

Partab Naraia Sin^h v. Trilokinath Singh 494 

Parthasarathy Pillai v. Thiruvengacla Pillai ^50 

Parvathi v. Manjayakarantha ,'....... 3^9 

v. Thirumalai 228,383,384,385 

Parvathi Ammal v. Saminatha Gurukal * . * . ,169 
Parvati v. Bhiku 368 

v. Ganpatrao Balal . 209 

-y. Kisansing .......... 80 

Parvati (Bai) v. Tarwadi Dolatram * * * .210 

ai v f Bhagwant ..,..*. 
v. Oh^tru . ,+ 






'XAB&E OF CASES OITBB. 

PAGE 

Kasi Sahu ......... 312 



. Ve&katesh Hanmaat Kxilkarni ..... 374 

kogftfetoU Appro* . . - 127,128,130,157,197 
Pearee Bayeo (Museamut) v. Htirbunsee Kooer (Mussamut) . . 133,166 
Pearee Moaeo Bibee v. Madhub Singh .** 22i 

Peary Lall y. Bhawoot Koer ....... 221,257 

Peary Lai Sinha v. Chandicharan Sinha ..... 312,318 

Peary Mohan Mookerjee (Rajah) v. Narendra Krishna Mukerjce . . 564 
Peary Mohan Mukerji . Norendra Nath Mukerji ..... &$$ 

Pfdda Amani v. Zemindar of Marungapuri ...... ^ 

P< ildaruuthulaty t\ N. Timma Roddy ...... 174, 301 

LVddamuttu \'iramani e. Appu Bau ....... &^ 

PoUdJr Kamappa Xayanivaru v. Bangari Seshamma Nayanivaru . .519 
PoJdaya t'. Rarualingarn ........ 230,344 

Poet Koonwar v. Chuttur Dharee Singh . .... &7Q 

Pema r. Jaa Kunwar . . . * ..... * 336 

Pemraj Chandra Bhau v. Savalya Gajaba ...... 28 ^ 

Pom Sing o. Partab Singh ........ 32 

Peria Amman! v. Krishnasami ....... 112, 120 

Perianayakam v. Pottukanni ........ 64 

Peri&sami t*. Periasami ...., 361, 386, 518 

Periadami Mudaliar t. Scetharama Ohettiar . *, . . .321 

Poriya Gaundan v. Tirumala Gaundan ...... 199 

Perkash Chundcr Roy v. Bhunmonee Dassea . . . 153, 175 

Perah&d Singh v. Muhcsrce (Ranee) ...... 208,382 

Pertab Narain Singh (Maharajah) v. Subhao Koer (Maharanee) . .115 
Perumal Kaik i j . Saminatha Pillai .,...* 593 
Petambur Dutt y. Hurrish Chunder Dutfc ...... 222 

Pctfcoohi GfoBttiar y. ISangili Veera Pandia ...... 319 

nfidttw&Ktoa&xv. JuggessurSahoyfLalla) <> . .. 233, 348 

PhK>lbas Koonwur (Mmssumafc) v. Juggeshur Sahoy * . 267, B48 
Phool Chund Lall v. Rughoobuns Suhaye .... 485, 512, 513 

Phool Koer (Hussamut) v. Babee Pershad ...... 483 

Phukar Singh v. Ranjit Singh ........ 466 

PhulChandt?.LaohmiChand ........ 278 

- v. Lakku ......... 523 

- . Man Singh ....... 284,308,309 

Phuljhari Koer (Mussamut), In the matter of 348 

PhulKoeri, In the matter of ........ 348 

Phnndaa Lai & Arya Prithi Nidhi ....... 539 

Phundo v* Janginath, ......* 144 
Piohuvayyan ?, Subbayyan . . , w , * .> . 147 
Piitt ^ Babajl ........ , . . 486, 489 

PWripolu Sooraparaju v. Pindripoiu Veerabhadruda , * , . 



18^186,528 

)z;. Doorga Lai tTha (Soobah) . . - 213,214 
) , Raj Kower (Ranee) . . . 78,81,82,94 
Sarma ...... 571 

Pitamber Ratansi , Jagjlvan Hansra ] ...... 52 

Pitam Singh v. UJa$ar ^iogh ....... 253, 277 

, Fitum Kooawar (Mtis&t) . JoyMs^ja Bos^ ..... 361, 527 



TABLE Off CASttS CITED, 

PAGE 

Pokunnull Augurwallah, In the goods of 24(5 

Poli v. Narotum Bapu 387, 388, 449 

Pollard v. Rouse 214 

Ponduranga ?;. Nagappa 587, 588, 590 

Ponnambala Madaliyar v. Varaguna Kama Pandia Chmnatambara 582, 583 
Ponnambula Pillai v. Sundarapayyar ....... 304 

Ponnappa Piilai v. Pappuvayyangar 280, 284, 285, 309, 310, 317, 319, 321, 323 

Ponnusami v. Thatha 303 

Ponnusami Nadan v. Doraiami Ayyan . . . . .23, 24, 25 

Poolunder Singh v. Ram Pijrshad 294 

Poorondra Nath San v. Hemangini Da*i . . . 334, 335, 460, 530 

Poorunmul v. Toolsee Ram 45, 57 

Poraka Subbarami Reddi v. Vadlamuddi Sashachalam . . . 298, 32 I 
Porcshnath Mookerjeo v. Omorto Nauth Mittor * 352 

Porthouso, In. the goods of . . 5*3 

Prafulla Chunder Mullick v. Jogendra Natli Sroomany . 539, 548, 554, 555 

Prag Das v. Harikishn 199, 177 

Pragji Kalan v. Govind Gopal . . . . 7, 8 

Pragjivan Dayaram v. Reva ( Bai) * 388 

Pramada Nath Roy (Raja) v. Ra,mani Kanta Roy (Raja) . . * 200 
Pramada Nath Roy . Parna Chandra Roy . 553, 5($3, 567 

Prandhur Roy v. Ramohendor Mongraj .57 

Pranjeovandaa Toolseydas v. Dowcoovorbaoo . . 19, 387, 467, 470 

Praujivandas v. lohhajA 34 

Prankiahen Paul Chow^htry v. Mothooramohun Paul Ohowdhry . 254, 359 

Prankishen Sing v. Bhagwuto (Mussummaut) *&i 

Pcankissen Laha v. Koyftamonay Bassoe (Sreomutty) , 4&& 

Prankfeto Chuaden >. Bamnjaoond^y Bo3S30 &$ 

Prankkhna Surma, In th^ matter of , . 213 

Praukmhna Tewary v. Jadu Nath Trivody - < .0,309,313 

Pran Kristo Mojoomdar v. Bhagoorutae Gooptia (Sroemutty) . 256 
Prannath Chowdhry v. Kashiaath Roy Ghowclhry . . . .255 

Prannath DAS v. GaLishunkar Ghoaal 298 

Pran Nath Surma Jowardar v. Sarrut Ohundra Bhuttaoharjoo 422, 426, 430 
Pranputtoo Koor v. Futfcoh Bahadoor Singh (Lalla) . - 502,503 

Pranvuilubh v. Dookristn 18J) 

Prasannamayi Dasi v. Kadambini Dasi 1^ 

Pratabnarayan Das v. Court of Wards 285 

Prawnkissen Mittor v. Muttysondery Dassoo 333 

_ ^- 1;. Ram Sundoree Doasoo (Sroomutty) ,. .351 

Prayaga Doss Joo Va,ra v. Tirum^la Sriranga Charylu Varu . . ,554 
Frayag Doss Ji VairU 3i4aliant v. Tiuumala Srirargaoharlavaru 551, 578, 580 

53,289,48* 



14, 360 
, 339 



Prom Ohand Bauthra v. Radhica Lall Roy . 

Promchand Poparah v. Hulashchand Poparah 

Prom Chund Dan v. Darimba D>jbia . 

Promkuvar (Bai) v. Bhika ICallianji . 

Prommoyi Choudhrani v. Proonath Dhur 

Prithoe Singh v. Court o Wards 

Prithismgji v. Umedsingji . 

Prit Koar v. Mahadeo Porshad Singh . f 

, J^Obodh Lai Kundu v. Harish Chandra Day . \ 
aoy v. Nagcndrabala Chaudhrani . 82, 85, b^,W^ 
\ to Ita^liik^ Porsaud Datt . * *,,,-> < 



x TABLE OP ^OASBS CITED. 

PAGE 

Prosaimo Kumar Boao u. Sarat Shoshi U-hosh 458 

Prosoano Koomar Bural v. Sajudoor Ruhman (Chowdree) , . 306 
Prosunno Chunder Bhuttachorjee v. Kristo Chytunno Pal . . 324 
Prosunno Cooraar Ghose v. Tarnicknath Sirkar . . 441, 442, 530 
Prosun.no Kumar Adhikari v. Saroda Prosunno Adhikari * . . 566 
Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo 555, 557, 562, 503, 564, 565, 

567 

Prosunno Kumar Naudi v. Umedur Raja Chowdhry . . . 478, 492 
Prosunnomoyee (Ranee) v. Ramsoonder Sein . . ' . . 1 83 

Prosunno Moyoe Dossee v. Koonjo Beharoe Chowdhrae .... 566 
Protap Chandra Misser v. Brojonath Missor .... 585, 592, 594 
Protap Gliunder Roy Chowdhry v. Joy Monoo Dabae Chowdhrain (Sree- 

mutty) 491 

Puddo Kumarcc Debco v. Juggut Kishorc Acharjee 130, 131, 178, 180, 193 
Pucldolabh Roy v. Ram Gropal Chatterjee Bahadoor (Raja) . . . 593 
Paddo Monee Dossee (Sroemutty) v. Dwarka Nath Biswas . , . 475 
Puddum Mookhoe Dossoe v. Rayoe Moneo Dossoo .... 335 
Padma Cpomari Dabi v. Court of Wards 130, 131, 156, 178, 180, 193, 190, 

431, 432 

Pudmanund Singh Bahadoor (Raja) i>. Hayes , 533, 534 

Padmavati (Rany) v, Doolar Singh (Baboo) . . , , 26, 27 

Puhoop Singh v. Khooman 382 

Pulin Chandra Mandal v. Bolai Mandal 488 

Punchanund Ojhab v. Lalshau Misser . 4(>(> 

Punohanun Mullick v. Shib Chunder Mullick . . . 352, 353, 354 

Puncha Thakur v. Bmdeshri Thakur 573 

Punna Bibee v. Radha Kissen Das 76, 228 

Puran Atal (Mohunt) v. Darshan Das 585 

Purappavanalingam Chetti v. Nullasivan Chetti 569 

Purmanund v. Orumbah Koor 297 

Purmanund Bhufctacharuj v. Oomakunt Lahoree , 129 

Purmessur Dutt Jha (Chowdroe) v. Hunooman Dutt Eoy . , 158,202 
Pormossar Ojha v. Goolbee (Mussamut) . . . , . ,. 288 
Purna Chandra Chakrawarti v. Sarojiai Debi , 333, 335 

Purna Saahi Bhattaoharji v. Kahdhan Rai Chowdhuri . f ,532 

Purshotam v. Rakhmabai 185 

Purshotamdas Maneklal v. Mani (Bai) 72 

Purshotamdas Tribhovandas v. Purshotamdas Mangaldas Nathubhoy . 59 
Purshotam Shama Shenvi v. Vasudov Krishna Shonvi . . 183, 249, 530 
Pursid Narain Sing v. Hunooman Sahay , 332, 333 

Pursun Sahoo v. Ramdeon Lall 300 

Pursut Koer . Palut Roy ] ] 509 

Purtab Bahaudur Sing v. Tilukdharoe Sing .... 246, 247, 250 
Porushottam v. Atmaram Janardan . * , . , . , 353, 354 

Pusi v. Mahadeo Prasad . '75 

Putlabai v. Mahadu 132 ? 130, 137, 216 

Puttu Lai v. Parbati Kunwar (Musammat) , . 17, 21, 133, 144, 14$, 1*7$ 



Queen w. Balia^tcp, Singh *..,,*., 57 

v. Bezonji . ! ! 216 

- v, Maiimuttu . , % % f , t , 64, 67 78 83 



TABLE OF CASEfci CITED. 

PAOB 

Queen- Emprutttt t\ Butchi * 7t* 

- v. Hurroo Mohun Mythee ...... (V7 

n Ramanna 29, Itt3 



R. 

Rachava v. Kalingapa . , , , . . . . .412 

Rachawa v. Shivayogapa 92* 9 1 

Radaik Gascrain v. Budaik Porshacl Sing ,519 

Radha Bullubh Chund v. Juggut Chunder Chowdree ... 5tf> 
Radha (Mussamat) p. Kour (Mussamut) .... 477, 487, 502 

Radha (Mussumat) v. Bisheshur Bass 438,441,444 

Radhabai v. Anantrav Bhagvant Beshpande . . . * 2ft 1 

v, Chimnaji ...,*.* 576 

v. Ganesh Tatya Gholap 18fi, 527 

V. Nanarav 1530,240,231 

Radha Churn Dass v. Kripa Sindhu Bass 22*-*. JU:J 

Radhachurn Rai i\ Kishenchund Rai 4^4 

Radha Kishen p. Bakhtawur Lall ; . . . . . 507 

v Rajkuar 382 

Radha Kishen Man p. Bachhaman ....... 333 

Radha Kishen Man] hoc v. Ram Mundul (Rajah) 425 

Radha KJshoro Mookerjee v. Mirtoonjoy Gow 292 

Radha Krishna Mudaliar v. Subraya Mudaliar . 543 

Radhamadhub Gossain v. Radhabullub Gossain 177 

Radha Mohan Dhar . Ram Bass Bey 504, 505 

Radhamohun v. Hardai Bibi . 11, 15, 17, 101, 104, 145, 146, 1*4, 17,0 

Radha Mohun Mundul v. Soshi Bhoosun Biswas 41H) 

Radhamonee Beboa v. Jadubnarain Roy . . . . . 183 

Radhanath Mookerjee v. Tarrueknath Mookerjee 325 

Radha Peareo Bossec r Boorga Monec Bossia , 428 

Radha Pcrshad Singh v. Talook Raj Kooer (Mussamut) . . . 287 
Radha Prasad Mallick v. Ranimoni Basi . . . 240, 520, 535, 543 
Radha Prasad Mullick p. Ranee Mani Bassee . . . . * 181 
Radha Prosad Mullick v. Ranimoni Bassi .... 240, 443, 520 

Radha Proshad Wasti v. Esuf 233 

Radha Shyam Sircar v. Joyram Senapati ..... 4S6, 487 

Radhi, In re the petition of ........ 75 

Radhika Patta Maha Bevi Gam (Sri Gajapathi) v. Nilamani Patto Mahk 

Bevi Gara (Sri GajapatM) ,, ^S4^3fi6 

Radhil^t Prasad Bey ^. Bhiirma Basi Bebi (Mnssumat) . * 25ft 

Ragarvento r Baa v* Jayaram Rau 44, 140, 142 

Raghajorao gfifaeab (Shrimant Rajc Bahadur) &. Lakshmanrao Saheb 

(Shrimant feaje Bahadur) %&* 

Raghubans Kunwar v. Bhagwant Kunwar ^5 

Raghubanund Boss v. Sadhu Churn Boss . . . 13,187,188,348,450 
Raghubar Bial v. Kesho Ramanuj Bas 557, 591 

Raghubir Singh v. Moti Kunwar 345,346,35^ 

Raghumall v. Luchniondas 27^ 
Rghunada (Sri) v. Brozo Kishoro (Sri) . . . 13, 81, 101, 120, Wfc ( 
122, 123, 125, 126, 141, 176, 195, 196, 199, 201, 264* ,ft^ 
Eamanuja Bas t?. Bibhuti Bhusan Mukerjee . * 88T ? ^^^t 

v ->'^* 



tTABtiB OK OASES CMD, 



PAGE 

h f. Thakuri . . ******* 606 



Kaghumath Damodhar t\ Janardhan Gopal ...... 7 

Raghixuathji Maharaj (Thakur) v. Shah Lai Chand . 556 

Raghmiathji Tarachand v. Bank of Bombay , 275, 276 

Baghunath Kuari v. Munnan Misr ....... 402 

Baghunatfc Prasad v. Gobind Prasad ....... 285 

Raghupati v. Tirumalai ......... 506 

Rtthi v. Govinda Valad Teja ... 63, 64, 208, 209, 227, 383, 384 
Kahmed Bitee v. Rokeya Bibeo ........ 64 

Raieharan Pal v. Pyari Mani Dasi ....... 506 

Rai< Churn Paul v. Suroop Chunder Mytee ...... 476 

Raikishori Dasi v. Debendranath Sircar .... 326, 533, 540 

JRai Sham Bullubh v. Prankishen Ghose ...... 364 

Raja i\ Subbaraya .......... 188 

Raja Dei v. Urned Singh ....... 490, 491, 507 

Rajagopala Reddy v. Nathu Govmda Reddy ..... 172 

Rajah Lall v. Delputty Singh ........ 291 

Rajahmundry, Chairman, Municipal Council of v, Susurla Venkateswarlu 584 
Raja Jee Bahadur Gam (Raja) v. Parthasaradhi Appa Row . * 211, 251 
Rajamma z>. Ramakrishnayya ....,.,. 249 

Rajammal v. Authiammal ......... 528 

Rajan v. Basuva Chetti ......... 174 

Rajanikanth Biswas v. Ram Nath Neogy ...... 299 

Rajaram v. Ganesh ......... 573,574 

Raja Ram Banerjee v. Sonatun Roy ....... 498 

Raja Ram Tcwari t?. Lachman Prasad . . . 233, 267, 268, 327 
Raja Ram Toxvary v. Luchmun Persad . . . 225, 304, 305, 307 
Raj Bahadoor Singh v. Achumbit Lai ....... 109 

Raj Bahadur w. Bishen Bayal ....... 24, 25 

Raj Bullubh Sen t'. Oomesh Chunder Rooz ...... 486 

Rajbulubh Bhooyar v. Buneta Do (Mussummaut) .... 298 

Rajchimdor Das . Dhtmmune (Kussummani) ..... 425 

Raj Chundor Naram Chowdty t?. Goculchund Goh . * , ' S7, 428 
Raj chunder Paramanik, Doe dem v. Bulloram Biswas . 483 

Rajcoomaroe Dossee v. Gopal Chundor Bose ..... 343 

Rajcoomaree Dossee (Sreemutty) o. Nobocoomar Mullick . 133, 166, 203 
Rajcoomar LaU v. Bissessur Dyal . 22, 108, 141, 144 

Rajender Duti v. Sham Chund Mitter . , . 102, 325, 326, 342, 539, 541 
Rajender Nath Roy v. Putto Soondery Dassee (S. M. Ranee) . . 98 
Rajendra LaU Agarwalla v Rajcoomari Debi , 542, 550 

Rajondro Lall Gossami v. Shama Churn Lahori ..... 232 

Rajendro Narain Lahoree v. Saroda Soonduree Daboe . 100, 106, 107, 141 
Rajendro Nath Holdar t?. Jogendro Nath Banerjee . . . .175 

Rajoshwar Mulliok v. Gopeshwar MuUic^i .... 560,573,575 

Rajeswara Gajapaty Naraina Deo Maharajtilungaru (Sri Sri Sri Rajah) 
v, Virapratapah Rudra Gajapaty Naraina Deo 



, 

i Ammal (Raja) v. Subramania Archakar * . : , . S57 
nandrav Nimbalkar v. Jayavantrav 129, 179, 180, 181 
jah) t?. Ramjoy Surma Mozumdar . . . 28, 30 
rulHuq ...... 514 

Lai ....... 490 

QobM Chunder Lahoory . 224, 414, 423, 427 
... ..... 7 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



Rajkoonwaroo Dassee i\ Golaboe Dassoo , ..... 3^ 

Raj Krishna Doy v. Bipin Bohary Doy ..... 3^ 57^ 

Rajkristo Boy r. Kishoreo Mohun Mojoouxlar .... 200, 480 

Raj Iiukheo J)ab?a v. Gokool Chundor CJxowdry . 270, 206, 478, 487, 502 
Rajlukhy Daboc (Sm.) v. Bhootnath Mookerjeo . . . . 05, 78 

Rajnarain Boso v t Universal Life Assurance Company . . . .173 

Rajnarain Singh v. Heeralal ...... 236, 337 339 

Rajputty Keen (Mussummat) v. Nripabati (Mussummat) . . .10(5 
Raju Gramany v. Ammani Amuxal . . . . 10, 17, 452, 455, 401 

Rajya Lakshrni Dovi Garu (Sri Raja Viravara Thodramal) v. Surya Narayana 

Dhatrazu Bahadur Garu (Sri Raja Viravara Thodranoai) . 347 
Rakhal Chuuder Roy Chowdhry v. Mahtab Khan . . . .208 

Rakhaldas Bundopadhya t>. Indru Moneo Dobi . 234 

Rakhraabai v. Kcshav Raghunath Bhiso ...... 505 

- v. Radhabai ..... 118,124,125,126,194198 

- v. Tukaram ........ 390, 413 

Rama v. Ranga .......... 481 

Ramabai *>. Rangrav . . . . , . . . KJ4 

- v. Raya .......... J03 

-- v. Trimbak Ganesh Itesai ..... 77, 79 ? go, 80 

Ramabhadra (Rajah Sstruchela) v. Virabhadra Suryanarayana (Rajah 

Setruoherla) ........ 274,345,355 

Ramachandra Naiker v. Vijayaragavulu Naidu .... 442, 443 

Ramaohandra Padayaohi v. Kondayya Ghetti ..... 323 

Ramacharya v. Anantaoharya ........ 353 

Rama Jogiah v. Venkatacharulu ....... 577 

Rama Kanta Das Mahapafcra v. Shamanand Das (Ghowdhuri) , 28, 260 
Ramakkal v* Ramasami Naiokam ...... 3g7 ? 47^ 

Ramakissoor Dosaji v. Sriranga Charlu ...... 594 

Ramakrishna v. Tripurabai ....... 199,200 

Ramakrishna Kuppaswami v. Tripurabai ..... 199 9 200 

Ramakristna v. Subbakka ....... 160, 161, 242 

Ramalakshmi Ammal v. Sivauanantha Porumal Sothurayar 27, 28, 29, 30, 



Ramalinga Muppan v. Pavadal Goundan . . . 228, 384, 38& ^ 
Ramalinga Pillai v, Sadasiva Pillai .... 111,142,144,175 

Ramalingam Pillai v. Vythiliiagam Pillai ..... 569, 571 

Ramamani Ammal v. Kulanthai Natchear ..... 38, 99 

Ramanadan v. Rajagopala ...... . '.friiT 1 ' 1 

v. Rangammal 



Raman Ammal v. Subban Annayi . i. . . , ' r 
Rjacaa Nand ?. Surgiani . ..... ' . '' ' . ' ', i SS, #90 

Ramananda t?. Raikishori Barmani ...... . 360 

Rama Nand gbgk v. Gobind Singh ..... , ! , ^' 

Ramanarasn v. Buohamma . , . . . ,* , ,i. ,'' ^ # 
Ramanathan Chethar v. Ananthanarayana Aiyar . . , . , $94 
Ramanathan Ghetti v. Murugappa Chetti , . . 559, 569, 571, 575 
Ramanathan Ghetty v. Yegappa Ghetty ...... 276 

Ramanayya v. Rangappayya ; ,, . . . . * . . 209 

Bamanna ?. Venkata . - '.'',. -,',' 2 
B^nia ( ]Sfooj Boss (Mohtuit) t>. B^j' Dogs {tookaEt} . . 
Ramanund Kloer (Thakurain) v. |laghTiD.afch Koer (Thakuram) 

' 



TABLE 03? CASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Rama Row (Sri Rajah) v. Rajah of Pittapur .... 263,264 
Ramasammayyan u. Virasami Ayyar . T-*~ . . . 282, 305, 316 
Raxnasami v. Appavu ......... 30 

. v. Narasamma 390 

v. Papayya 442 

, v. Venkatesam 414 

Rainasami Ayyar v Vcngidusarni Ayyar 484, 485 

Kamasami Chetti v. Mangaikarasu Nochiar ...... 482 

. v. Saluckai Tevar 493 

TUmasami Kamaya Naik v. Sunduralingasami Kamaya Naik 188, 263, 519 
Kamasami jSTadan v. Ulaganatha Goundan . . , . 317, 321, 322 

Kainasami PacMyatchi v. Virasami Padciyatchi 75 

Itamasamy Aiyan v. Minakshi Ammal 80 

Rttmasamayyan r. Virasami Ayyar 282 

Ramasawini Aiyan v. Vencataraniaiyan . . 181, 184, 185, 193, 30(5 

... v. Vcnkata Achari 7 

Ramasheshaiya Panday t>. Bhagavat Panday 24ti 

Ramaswami lyen v. Bhagati Ainmal 122 

Rama Varma Tambaran v. Raman Nayar 573 

Ramawati Koer i Manjhari Koer 79 

Ram Avtar Singh v. Nursing Narain Singh 282, 287 

Rainayya v. Venkataratnam 268, 322 

Rambai (Bai) v. Man! (Bai) 523 

Ram Baran Rai v. Rajwanti Knar (Mtisammat) 380 

Ramayyangar v. Krishnayyangar 577 

Rambharti Jagrupbharti (Gosain) v. Sarajbharti Haribharti (Mohant) . 562 
Rambhat 9. Lakshnian Chintaman Mayalay . 102, 178, 179, 201, 304 

v. Tirumayya 52, 59 

Ram Broino Pandah v. Kaminee Soonduree Dossoo ... 20, 27 
Ram Bunsoe Koonwareo (Maharanee) v. Soobh Koonwaroe (Maharanoe) 47, 48 

Ram Ohandar v. Kallu 499 

fcam^aaadta u KaMrappa , . \"< 309 

v. Copal ....... 40,46,139 

v. Shamrao 130 

Ramchandra Baji v. Bapu Khandu 118 

Ramohandra Bhagavan v. Mulji Nanabhai .... 118,124,125 

Ramchandra Bikshit u. Savitnbai 95 

Ramohandra Kashi Patkar v. Bamodar Trimbak Patkar . . 233, 236 
Ramchandra Mankeshwar v, Bhimrav Rav]i . . . .199, 477 

Ramchandra Mantri v. Venkatrao 260 

Ram Chandra Marvrari v. Mudeshwar Singh .... 263, 300 
Ramchandra Mortand Waikar v. Vinayak Venkatesh Kothokar 377, 379, 400 
Ram Chandra Mukerjoe v. Ranjifc Singh . . . 169, 522, 552, 553 
Ram Chandra Panda v. Ram Krishna Mahapatra . . 225, 248, 569 
Ramchandra Sakharam Vagh v. Sakharam Gopal Vagh . . 206, 211 
% Bs>mchandra Shankarbhava Dravid v. Elashinath Narayan Bravid , , , ^63 
Vasudev v. Nanaji Timaji . . . , ',.,,, l(JO 
b^. Vinayak Kulkarni v. Narayan Babaji ..!,' 16$ 

B^c^Bw!*a Vishnti Bapat v. Sagunabai 82 

v. Audaito Sen 52 

d 354 

Lai .,.,..... 286 

Ram Charan Bajpal . Bafchal Das Moakerje0 559 

Baksj^ ,, #)$ 



ITABLE OF UAtiEH CITED* l xxv 



Bam Chunder Adhikaree v. Bam Joe bun Adhikarce 
Bamchunder Surma v. Gungagovind Bunhoojiah 
Bam Churn Pooree w. Kunhoo Mundul 
Bam Ghurun Tewarec r. Jasooda Koonwer 
Bamconnoy Audicarry v Johur Lall Dutt . 
Bamcoomar Mitter v. lehamoyi Dasi .... 
Bam Coomar Paul v. Jogender Nath Paul . 

Bam Das v. Chabildas 

r. Chandra Dassia 

Bamdas Gopaldas (Sadhu) v. Baldevdasji Kaushalyadasji 
Bam Das Marwari v. Braja Bohari Singh (Tekait) 

Bam Dass v. Gunga Dass 

Bam Dayal v. Ajudhia Prasad . 

v Durga Singh . 

v. Megu Lai 




Bam Debul Lall w. Mitterjeet Singh ... 290, 

Bam Dei Kunwar v. Abu Jafar 50^' 

Bamdhan Puri (Gossain) v. Dalmir Puri (Gossain) , , 415, 41 b* 572! 

Bamdhari Singh v. Permanund Singh &y 

Bamdhono Ghoso v. Anund Chundor Ghose ..,.. 335 

Bam Dhun Doss v. Bam Buttun Dutt 214 

Bamdhun Sein v. Kishen Kanth Sein > 340 307 

Bam Doss v. Mohesur Deb Missree .,.. "^ ""Iftttk, 

Bamdoyal v. Junmenjoy Coondoo 260 

Bamdulol Sircar v. Joymoney Dabey (Sreemutty) . . . 433, 441 

Bamdut Sing v. Mahender Prasad 317 

Bamdyal Deb v. Magnee (Musst) , 4^7 

Bameshaiya Panday v. Bhagavat Panday 247 

Bameshwar Prosad Singh L Laohmi Prosad Singh 249, 260, 327, 533, $&} 
Bameswar Mondal v. Provabati Debi ,,,,., 490, 407 
Bamgappa Naik V. Kamti Naik ..,,... 401 
Bam Ghulam Singh v. Bam Bchari Singh . 222, 238 

Bam Gobind Koond v. Hossein Ah (Moulvic Syud) . 258 

Bam Gopal Bhuttacharjee v. Naram Chundor Bandopadhya 437, 440, 458, 450 

Bamguttee Acharjeo v. Kristosoonduroe Dobia 534 

Bamgutty Doss v. Nundo Koomar Doss 3^3 

Bam Gutty Kurmokar y. Boishtab Churn Mojoomdar . 477 

Bam Harakh v. Bam Lai 354, 

Bam Hari Sarma v. Trihi Bam Sarma ^(50 

Eamiengar v. Gnasambanda Pandarasannada . . . . , 590 

Bamjewan Lai (Lala) v. Dal Koer * , 443 

Batfj^i * ; Ghamau * I24 1^6, 104 

Bamji |W (M^tonth) v. Laohhu Dass .... 568, 570, 571 

Bam Joshi b. l^axmibai t . . 3^^ 

Bamjoy Ghose v. Bam Bunjun Chuckerbutti , 3^3^ $&$ 

Bamjoy See v. Tarrachund ...... 3^0 

Bam Kali v. Jamma 382, 38$ 

v. Kedarnath 509 

Bamfcallee Koer v. Court of Wards 07 

Bam Kant Chuokerbutty v. Chundor Narain ft^oitta Boy , t . 48jt 

Bam Kanye Audicary v. Cally Churn Dey . ' 4 9 ' 

Jfeam Kanye Gossainee v. Meernomoyee Dossee . . . . * , ^8 , 
I^m Kawal Singh v. Bam Kishore Das 



TABI/B OF 

"^ 

PAGE 

i Snrkeyl v. Srinanttoe Dibia (Mussummaut) .... 108 

feoro Acharj Ghowdree v. Bhoobunmoyee Dobca Chowdhrain 146, 224 
Bamkfehows Chuofcorbutty v. Kally Kanto Chuckerbutty . . . 496 
Bamtehow) Kedaraath v. Jainarayan Ramrachpal . . .164, 306 
Rantkissen Singh (Maharajah) v, Sheonund Singh (Rajah) . . . 349 
Ram jKoonwr v. Ummur ......... 364 

Earn Koto (Bai) r. Jamnadas Mulchand ..... 47, 48 

LKrialinaw.JTara.in ......... 312 

, v. Vinayak Narayan ...... 282, 315 

b Gopal Joshi v, Chimnaji Vyankatesh .... 142 

b Kuppusatni ?. Trlpxirabai ...... 487 

i. Ma]>ahatra v Padma Charan Deb Goswami . . 567, 568 
t Ramehanclra v. Shamrao Ycshwant ..... 130 

I'tiber Pandc r. Ram Dasi ....... 277, 282 

umari, In the matter of ....... 39, 64 

imkunhaee Rai r. Bung Chund Bunhoojea ..... 299 

I Kunwar v. Ram Dai . . ...... 84, 89, 92 

fl. DebiDat ........ 348,349 

v. Secretary of State ..... 541,570 

Ram Lall Sett v. Kanailall Sett ....... 240,535 

R&m Lai Shookool v. Akhoy Charan Mitter .... 38, 39, 497 

Ramlal Thakursidas t. Lakhmiohand Muniram ..... 274 




Rata LocM Koeri t. Collingridge 

Ram Loehun Pattuck v. Rughoobur Dyal ...... 353 

Ram Mohan Lai ?<. Hnlchand . ...... 354 

Ramnad case (sec Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga 

Sathupathy) ......... 129,514 

Ram Narain Lai z. Bhawani Prosad .,..,.. 280 
Ram jSfarain Nursing Doss v. Ram Chimder Jankee .... 239 

Ranusuarain Poramaniok v. -Sreemutty Dossee ..... 329 

torn ^dcatiJi Sing v. Pcaray Bhugut ,' , * , .441 
Ram Karain Singh t 1 . R&moon Faurey . * . . . 552,553 
Ram KaramBingh (Rajah) v. Plfetum Singh . 219, 220, 225, 237, 42, 249 
Ram Nath Rai v Lachman Rai ........ 281 

Ramnath Tolapattro r. Durga Sundari Debi ..... 369 

Ram Nirunjun Singh v. Prayag Singh ...... 337, 340 

Ram Nundun Singh v. Janki Koer (Maharani) . . . 251, 515, 518 
Ram Pershad Chowdhry r. Jokhoo Roy ...... 502 

Ram Pershad Doss AdMkaree v, Sreehuree Doss Adhikaree . . 553, 557 
Ram Pershad Narain Tewaree v. Court of Wards ..... 341 

Ram Pershad Sing v Nagbungshee Kooer (Mussamut) .... 510 

Ram Pershad Singh v. Lakhpati Koer ..... 346,349 

Rampershad Tewarry v. Sheoehurn Doss v . . 239, 245, 246 

Ramphal Rai v. Tula Kuari . h , ' ; . . . 487, 490 
Ramphal Thakur v. Pan Mati Padain ....... 404: 

Ramphul Singh r. Degnaram Singh ... 

R^a PftOs;ash Das (Mohvint) v. Anand Das (Mohunt) 

Raini Pra4a4 v. Man Mohun ........ 281 

Rampjrafc^otoa Nandi Chqwdhuri v. Secretary of State . . . 564, 565 
RanVpriya, fe Biyaguram ....... . . 77 

Ramprotafe Pss^r v, Abhilak Misser ...... 171,172 

Ramrao Ttimb&fc Deshpande u. YeshYaatrao Madhavrao Deshpande . 261 
Ram Rakn r. t*chman Dis ....... 284,308 



TABLE Or OAfcJEb ClTIflU, Ixxvil 

PAUB 

Ranirafcan fc>ukal 0. Nandu (Mussumat) ...... 510 

Ram Rau v. Raja Rau 174 

Ramrutun Pas t;, Bunmalee Das ,..... 72 

Ram Sahai v. Kewal Singh 31 

Ram Sahoy Singh v. Mohabeer Pershacl 310 

Ram Sahyo Bhukkut v. Laljoo Sahyo (Lalla) . 228, 229, 305, 371 

Ram Saran Garain v. Tekchaud Garain 227, 433 

Ram Saran Lall v. Rain Narayan Singh . . . . .261 
Ram Saran Pathak v. Raghu JSTanclan Gir . .... 558 

Ram Sarup v, Bola (Mussuiuat) ..*.,., 533 



v. Ram Dei 



Ramsebuk v. Ramlall Koondoo . 
Rani Sevak Das v. Raghubar Rai 
Ram Shankar Lai v, Ganesh Prasad . 
Ram Shewuk Roy v. Sheo Gobind Sahoo 
Ram Singh v. Sobha Bam . 

v. Tursa Kunwar (Musst) . 

Ram Singh (Bhyah) v. Ugur Singh (Bhyah) 



495, 501 
267, 2^ 
27^ 80 
. 'MO 
490, 500 
. 281 
. 350 
376, 378, 385, 394, 396, 398 



Ram Soonder Das (MoJianth) v. Nathuni Singh .... 298,303 
Ram Soonder Roy v. Ram Sahye Bhugut . . . 228, 229, 305, 371 
Ram Soonder Thakoor v. Taruck Ohunder Turkoruthun . .559 

Ram Soondur Singh v. Surbauee Dossee . . . . . 112,131 
Ram Sunder Das (Mahanth) v. Barhamdeo Narayan Thakur . . 298, 303 
Ram Swaruth Pandey v. Basdeo Singh (Baboo) .... 3G7, 380 
Ram Taran Goswami v. Rameswar Malia . . .... 281 

Ramtonoo Chatterjee v. Issurchunder Noogee 299 

Ramtonoo Mullick v. Ramgopatd Mullick . .... 551 

Raa Bijai Bahadur Sinh (Diwan) . Indarpal Swgh . . 75, 435, 47 
R^n Bijai Bahadur Singh (Dewan) v. Jagatpal Singh . 373, 374 
Ranchhodas Vithaldas (Desai) v. Bawal Nathubai Kesabhai . . .389 
Ranchod Naran v. Ajoobai .... .... 412 

Raneemoney Dosgce (Sroemutty) v. Premmoney Dosscc (Srecmutty) 533, 542 
Rangachariar v. Yegna Dikshatui *> + * - 5& 
Raixgammal v. Echammal ... 210,243 

Ranganadha Mudaliar v. Baghirathi Ammal . . . . 535* 

Ranganaikimmal v. Ramanuja Aiyangar 47,53 

Ranganatha Rao v. Narayanasami Naicker 222 

Banganayakamma w. Alwar Setti . . Ill, 132, 149, 152, 154, 155, 177 
Ranganmani Dasi (S.M.) v. Kasinath Dutt . * 27$ 

Rangappa v, Bhimappa .....* & * 

486,488,490,491 
v. Krishnayyan, .....** 302 

__ 1/ ' / K*7> 

y f Rauga , . . . - - . o/*J 

Rangasami Kaidu v. Sundarajulu Naidu &44T 

Rangayian v. Kalyam Ummall 7*7 

Rangayya Chetti v. Thanikachalla Mudali . . . .313 
Rangilbhai Kalyandas y. Vilayak Vishnu ...... 482 

Rango Balaji v. Mudiyoppa 103, 105, 171 

Rango Vinayak Dov v. Yamunabai 81 

Rangubai ?;. Bhagirthibai . . , . * - 135, 150, 151 

v, Subaji Ramohandra . & 

Banimoni Dassi v. Radha Prosad Mullick 535 

v. Badha Rani 370 

fcarmakar ?. Bijoy Krishna Karaakar . . . 115,117 
ILL, ' / 



TABLE 01? OASES CITED. 

PACU2 

Ranjit Sing o. Ainullya Prosad Uhoso 277, 287 

Ranjit Singh (Raja) v. Ramchandra Mookerjee * 202, 497 

Ranjit Sinha Bahadur (Raja) v. Basunta Kumar Ghose . . . 567 
Ranmalsangji Bhagwatsangji (Maharana Shri) v. Kundankuwar (Bai 

Shri) 78,97,98 

Ranmal Singji (Maharana Shri) v. Vadilal Vakhatchand . 277, 290, 493 

Ranoji v. Kandoji 228,384 

Ran Singh v. SoTbha Ram 314,310 

Raol Gorain v. Teza Gorain ..,.. 233 

Rarichan v. Perachi 380 

Rash Beharee Roy v. Nimaye Churn 302, 303 

Rashid Karmali v. Shorbanoo 24, 79, 212 

Rashmohini Dasi v. Umcsh Chundcr Biswas . , . . .520 

Rasik Lai Mandal v. Singheswar Rai 312 

Rasul Johan Bogum v. Ram Surun Singh 370 

Ratanchand v. Javhorchand 88 

Ratan Dabec v. Modhoosoodun . . . . . . . .237 

Rathnam v. Sivasubramania . . . , .184, 285, 304 
Rathnasabapathi Pillai v. Ramasarai Ayar . . . . 603 

Ratnam v. Govindarajulu 272, 280, 290 

Ratnamasari v. Akilaixdammal . . . . . 109, 170 

Ratna Subbu Chetti v. Ponnappa Chotti 398, 405 

Ratnendra Lai Mittor v. Corporation of Calcutta ..... 557 
Ravanoshwar Prasad Singh v. Chandi Prasad Singh . . 293, 478, 512 

Ravji v. Sakuji 385 

Jfcavji Janardan Sarangpftni v. Gangadharbhat 278 

Ravji Ranohod Naik v. Vishnu Ranchod Naik 542 

Ravji Vinayakrav Jaggannath Shankarsott v, Lakshmibai 111, 127, 132, 153, 

154, 155, 173, 180,193 

Rayakkal v. Subbanna 285 

Bayoo Monoo Bosseo v. Puddum Mookhoo Dosseo .... 335 

Razabai v, Sadu 85, 93, 530 

Reado v. Krishna 217 

Reasut Hossoin v. Chorwar Singh , 268 

Rog. v. Jaili Bhavin . t 29 

v. Karsan Goja 30, 03 

v. Manohar Raiji 37 

v. Natha Kalyan , 75 

v. Sambhu Raghu 30, 37, 0& 

Rogella Jogayya v. Nimushakavi Vcnkataratnamma . . . .492 

Retki ?. Lak Pati Pujan 154 

Rotoo Raj Pandoy ;. Lalljco Pandcy 305, 50(5 

Rowa Prasad Sukal v. Doo Dutt Ram Sukal 257 

Bcwun Porsad v. Radha Booby (Mussumat) 220, 223, 343, 315, 340, 349, 302 

Rikhai Rai v. Shoo Pujan Singh 513 

Rindabai v. Anaoharya 411,407,468 

Bindnitmma v, Venkataramappa * 328 

Rfeal Singh v. Balwant Singh 108, 494, 405 

Bita Kuer (Babui) v, Purau Mai (Babu) .... f * 100 

Bithourn Lalla v, Soojun Mull Lallah 148 

Bivott Oarnao v* Jivibai 470 

Bojomoyoo Dasseo v. Troyluoko Mohinay Bassoo 508, 535, 530, 539, 551, 550 

Roma Nath w. Bajoninioni Dasi 82, 83 

Bomesh Ohundor Bhuttacharjco #. Soorjo Ooomar Bhuttaoharj<H^ . 278 



TABLE OK CASES CITED. 

I'AUE 

Roodor Oliundcr (Jhowdhry v. Suinbhoo Chunder Ohowdhry . . 305, 360 
Roopchund Tiiukchund v. Phoolchund Bhurmchund . . . ,412 
Koopchurn Mohapator v. Anund Lai Khan , . * . ,431 
Roop Laul v. Lakshmi Doss ,.,*,... 552 
Roopmorxjoorco Chowdraneo u, Ramlall Sircar . , 171, 174, 175, 170 
Roopnarain Singh v. Gugadhur Pershad Narain * . * 203 
Roshan Singh v, Balwant Singh ..... * 208, 227 

Rottala Runganatham Ohetty v, Pulicat Itamosami Ohotti . 285, 30 1, 303 
Rowvonkata Mahapati v. Mohipati Suriah ..... 441,412 

Roymoneo Dossee, In Iho goods of . * * * * .515 
Rudrapa v, Irava , ..... * * .411 

Rudr Narain Singh v. Hup Kuar. ...... * 4J2 

Rughonath Singh (Rajah) Q. Hurroehur Singh (Rajah) . , * .519 
Rughoonath Panjah t>, Luekhun Ohtand< k r Dullal Chowdhry , . *'KU 
Rujjomonoy DOHSCO v. Shibohunctor Mullick * * * 210,212 

Rujonoo Kant Mittor t?. Promchand BOBO * * . . !U>8, 400 

Ruka Bai v. Oanda Bai ......... M 

Rukhab v. Chunilal Ambushefc ...... 23, 187, IH8 

Rukhmani (Bai) v. Koahavlal . ....... 4<8 

Rukkini Basi (Srimaii) v. Kadarnath (ihoso . . % * .427 
Hukmini Koori (Musst) t;. Nilmani Bandyopadhya * . . 5J 1 
llulyat (Baoe) w. Jcychund ICowul ***..- 48, 50 
Rumea v. Bhagco ...... 3W7 

Rumun Do (Mohunt) t?, Ashbul l)o8 (Mohunt) * , . % 570 

Run Bahadoor Singh t>. Luoho Ooowar (Must.) ..... JOO 

Runchod Naran v. Ajoobai ...... 372 

Runchordas Vandrawandas v. Parvatibhai ..... 500, 550 

Rungadhur Nurondm Mardraj MaEapattur v. Juggumath Bhromurbur Roy 57 
Rungama v. Atohama . 15, 00, 103, 106, 140, 171, 174, 175, 170, 183, 204 
Runganaigum v. Namosovoya Piilay ....... 144 

Runjoct Ram Koolal v* Mahomed Waris . . * * * 481 
llunjoot Singh v. Gujraj Singh , ....... lifiO 

- . v. Madud Ali ....** ^34, 257 

Hunjcot Sing (Baboo) w. Obhyo Narain Sing ..... 143,158 

Run Murdim Sya (Ohuotorya) v< Sahub Puthulad Syn . 22, 200, 208, 227, 

228, 3B5J 
Itumxoo Patidoy y. Bukh Aii ..... . 2JM) 

Kupa Jagahet v, Krishna]! C^ovind . ..... .555 

Itup Chand (Lala) v. Jambu Parshad . , 102, 135, 145, HO, 148, Ito 
Eup Chand Ohowdhry v. Lata Ohowdhry ....* H 

EupohaadHiadumalv.Eakhmabai , . 118, 1S?4, 157, m, 10^ 10^ 198 
Xtup Naraia v. Gopal Dovi (Mussamwt) * . 141, 145, 175, 489, 50S 
Btp Kfarain Singh v. Junko Bye ....... #73 

Kttp Ram v. Rowati (Muaammat) ...,*.* 491 
Eup Singh v. Pirbhu Narain Singh ,...,. 205 
Rup Bingh (Rajah) w, BaiBni Rani ...... 510,517 

Rusi Mondli v. Sundar Mcndli ..,-*..* 
Russic Lai Bhunj ^ Puruwh Munnco . * . . . .424 

Buesoobai t;. Zoolokhabai *... !MX) 412, 413 



Eutam Singh w, Moti Singh - 

Efttohotmtty Dutt Jha i\ Kajunder Narain Race , 20, 20, 
E^tton Mowao Duti v, Brojomohun Butt ... 
3$0fcpL Kri*|iQ BOIBOO t, Bhugobati Ohundor Bosoo 
Rttreo BHudr ^, Koopehuakur .Shuulierjco . , 144, 



, * 484 
, :JB1, 85, 398 



* 



lABfcE Of t'ASBtf CITED 



N. 

Sal>o Bf'wa r. Kaha^uu Mitili ........ 175 

Salxio SWick ( Haji) r. Ally Muhotuwl Jiwi Mahomod 24, 308 

..... . 83 



Ki4'lwlr Kinhori* IVy ''. Kajani Kant Chuekulmlty , 425 

Huhit?*. BudhuaKuac ......... 404 

Siiilalmrt PraHad Sahu /'. Foollwwh Kcwr . . iiliT, 281, M) f HOSi 
KifhiKt*|a (Sirimnn) r. KrihttuiTalwhariyur ..... <i 

Kama Hao ........ 5 



Sa.Uwhiv Hhankar JoHhi r. Dhakubai - 8, SIM), 48, 510, 513 

Kidn .hiv l>inknr .Icwhi n Iukar Narayan Jtinhi . 30, SHI, !M)0, 11, 320 

m'sh\ap Uhiitc . , . I-i7, 1711 
...... 471, '105 

.... 327, S8 f HI,3H5 

AH Khun <?. Mlul (hp 
Umar *'. 



r. wnnf ....... :tt, ttBS,.tOl f 4U 

Haltwiur r. Jiajwftiilft ......... 08 J M) 

* * * - * * " 



l*'a) 4% o 

Sahu lUm t'harwlra *. Jiuji SiU ...... JHl.tUfl 

Saiihri, luiluMimUiTof ........ SM,ai 

r. Koi Kam * " 



jtt i'howtlhuri r. tjwir Mhuft D 



(Miua) /', \V.i/ir Ali 
H;iMu*rair, l^vji 



'. Hari Kunlma 

<!utia Vwiifttt Mkvhtft * * . 8W 
HtttUwUiv AcUiikari r. Hitiibai ...-!, 410, 40 



. 

Huk raliiti Nat iailmi tt Magaulnl Mutahitu* I * - * * 7 * * HH ^ y ^ 

*"*'** 



Hakyaliaui Jtfl> Rw Kaliib r. Hhnvani Uwi 



HmttbaJva Ayya* i 

Ayyar 



** 

wiiiMh.1 Khatoon *% MuiwMh ChutMO'r Uwy * . . - 



KjtUmullah . i*roMiafc Chandra H*>n > 

HuMialbhai Ni*thubhal i*. Hom<i*hvttt *,** ^^KRtt 

Hantaram Hiitffarai'hariar i*. Kwhuawami Ayyani(ar . . Ww 

r^jlttiiiiiw /* /viura * * * * * n*^tit 

SftinUmulu Mudallyur . WwuwianibHudaiiimiliirii , . * * *** 



^ HO, Ml,! 

itfyttftlltA m #**** 

PllW . - 



TABLE OF OASES CITED. 

PAGE 

Sammantha Pandara v, Sollapa Ohetti ....... 5G1 

Sandarambal Ammal v. Yovanagarukkal ..... 569 

Sangappa v. Sahobanna . . . . . . . . .20(5 

Sangili Virapandia Chinnathambiau v. Ahvar Ayyangar . . 323 
Sanjivi v. Jalajakshi . . ....... . 1 03 

Sanka Krishnamurthi v. Bank of Burma ..... 275 

&ankaznurti Mudaliar v* Chidaxnbara Madan. . . *3^>^ 5)0 
Sankaralingam Chotti 0. Subban Ohotti ..... 2!>, <>3 

Sankaralinga Nadan ?;. Rajcswari Dorai (Raja) . , 547, 550, 50* 5<>1 
Sankar Nath Mukorji t>. Bojoy Gopal Mukorji .... - ^ 7( * 

Sankar Hath Pundit r. Maclan Mohan Das ..... .318 

Sanku v. Pultamma ......... 371, 374 

Santappayyn ?>. Bangappayya . . , . , , 11I> 173 
Santhalva v. Manj^nna Shotty ...,.. * &%$ 
Sant Kumar v. Deo Saran ..... 388, 389, 405, 503, 508 

Sarabjit Partap Bahadur Sahi v. Indarjit Partap Bahadur Sahi 30, 202, 203 
Sarada Charan Chakravartl v. Burgaram Do Sinha ... - 277 
iSarada Prosad Ray v. Mahananda liay ..... 255, 25G 

Haracla Prosad Pal v. Ttama Pikti Pal ..... 108, U2 ] i5 

aaramiti P. Mannu ....... 227,383,3^.38^ 

Sarat Chandra Banorjoo r. Bhupondra Nalh Basu , , . .515 
Harat Chandra Ohoso v. Pratap Chandra (Jhoso .... 550, 551 

iftorat Chandra MiUlick . Kauai Lall CJhundor J * J [* 

Harat Chundcr Boy w. Gopal Chundor Laha ..... .173 

$ara vana To van v. Muttayi Ammal ...... ^^ 

Hardar Singh v. liatan Lai ....... yl(i 

fcJarkics v, Prosonomoyco Bosaoe ....... ^ 

Barnamoyoo Bewah *>, Soorotary of Stato ..... * *^*3 

Sarodasoondory Bossoo (S.M.) p. Tiaoowry Nandy . . 101, 170 ? 177 
Saroda 8oondury Bossoo v. Boyamoyoo Bossoo ..... ^52 

Saroda Sunclari Bassi w. Kristo Jiban Pal .... '141,4.42,413 

Kartoj Knari (Rani) v. "Dcoraj JCuari (Raiai) 18IJ, 225, 204, 205, 327, 527 

kSfirur Jigar Begum t;. Barada Kanta. Mitt(r ..... ,511 

Sataram Pandit (SJiri) . Haiihar Pandit (Shri) . . ,281 

Wathappayyar w. Atriamimi ..... 502, 570, 577, 581, 585 

Bathiauama Bharaii v, Haravanabagi Ammal , . 540, 500 

>Stithyabhama t;. Ivosavaoharya ...*... ^2, 83 
jyato Kocr v. Gopal Bahu ......... ^**7 

Saturluri Sootaramanujot Oharyulu t;, Nantjuri Soctapati . * 585, 501 
Saunadanappa v, Bhivbasawa , . , ^ * , ^^ 

fcSavitribai v. Luatiiydbai , , , . . . . . . 70,80,8^^0 

Sayamalal Butt v. Saudamini Baei ....... 1^2 

Soott i. $0otj; ........... W 

Boorotary of State v. Abdul Eakkim Khan ...... ^7 

- ;. Kamaohoo Boyo fcahaba , flltf* ^^ 

............................ v. Kangasatni Ayyangar , . . . . 301 350 

Secb Chundor Bosc v. Uoorooporsaud Boso ... * .07 
Seotaram v Blmntiook Pharoo Sahyo ....... 1'^* 

Boota Ram Gossain v. Fuktsor Ohand Ohuokerbutty . , * 30i2, 428 



Hwtul Pcwhad Bingh (Baboo) v. Gour Byal Singh (Baboo) 
Mteh (Sobitx Pan ^ Banohoro ..... 
8cllam , C^tif itt^al ..... 234, 325, 320, 328, 330 
^ , 44 



TABTiK OF CASES CITED, 



i Uanah *'. I'ttlathan Vitil Maryu Cuothy Umiih , , 2$) 

Hunhainnm r, Kuhbnrayntfa. ...*, WJ 

frMwclri Aiy'nj?ar /'. Hanga Bhatfar .,,. 550 

ri Ayyangnr t\ XaUraju Ayyar ...... 58U 



HailhuMlia r. Mtmclm, (Bui) . . , . * !>I2, ft&ti 
Si'fhur;uita r. PonuntmnnI *.**** 407 

ur * * .. 213, gut, #71, 575 

r. Mofo Vbia Uujythoonadiiu Sat<M|ta1hy * 147 
Si'vafc Kr|iHliniikftp I>ftji *'. ^|nlpa ManiIirTanilMkar * * . CU>1 
Shadi *\ Anup Sinh . ...... 22, 2*'i3 

Sh.tma f Itaran N:indi /\ Abliinuu t.'osuaiiii . . . * 552 
Sltnnmrhurn A*llii<'firri''* Hyrn#H* '% HMp DHH*' Hyrasc< Si^5L*l 
Sli.iMuiu*unil*'ry I);i'. in* ". Kartirk Chnrn Mittra ..... IJU 

Shurua StMtu'turri' /, Slxtnif rhuu<i'r l)utf ..*... 4iHt 

* Juiuoona Chowcthraiu * lil), Wr>, 5<Hi 



/*. 

Hham CIiuwk*r r. Narayni f )ilKh * * * . . HiS 
Hlmm KIKT i. IHth KfMT ..*... S82H t >, rl, 51 1 

Sham Kuar?'. (Jnyft I>in ,,****** 1HJ 
^ , w - *...*. r, Molianuniin Sii 



Sham U! r. Baunn .,**.,*, H, WMI, SB 
..... . -7, Himln ..... * 5817 

Sham l*all Mifra /. AinaivnilruNatli UOM<I .*..*. 1UU 
Hlmta LalSct /'. UuroSnomiun'fHJoopta *** 557 
Shamnamiu r. < tour*, u! Wanln * ^3H t ii^D, 218, 301 4! i 

Sluiimaram Sitij! r. Hu^Jumlninlyui *** 
Sttaturan (Ithaiji) r. Hajuuiya Mahnnuiil ..... 

' 



, Snntalmi ....* lIMi, 137, a 
Ul *'. Anhltiii Kimwar * *KW, 4HH, (5 



Htwuknr Hn.ludt /', Hard*'" Bakidt , * * * 
Whiittkar Uhitrati Hvnrm r. YVka|i Naik *.*. f*ii 
Sharif a /*, Muiwkttatt * * * * * *217 
Sltaro (libi r. FMddfo Dfiu ,,...*, 5t5 
JSh<utlii KhiiMlmn fWd \ *!(tmdra Xath Hoy (Imvvdhry * . ^5^ 
Shn-<hi BhuHhuu Lnhiri r, liaj^ndru Nuth Joardar * * * 4W 
jShavatri (Uata) **. Narayanan iNnmlmdiri (Unfa) w * 7H, 207 
J^;IM /', ritK'k < 'huwl'T Ayrh . * * * * * , 40 
d r, Hi ruin I ,*** 2BI 
. Kuari ', Hha^wati Praiiad ******* 4()3 
i ituknti Hinic r. Kutt^h Kinft ...* 339 
(!hunt Namin Hia^h r* Chukmr^ t^tHhatl Kanuu Shtgh . ^7 
I Jyat IV witm* % J ud<ttuat li Ti- wftnns * 7tt, 247 t 240, 333 f 334, 035* W 
Hiu<<ibitui i\ Sham Narain Singh . * * * * ,* \Wl 

\ Namht t', .Imiki PnuiHtt * 

Ktbrivin Hoy f Mokrihmia I>MN Mlitra . * SH^$W#W# 



N*rin Hingh <. 



f 



1^' 



i Bing f>, fCttihmriitr ^iiigh 



TABLE OF OASES CITED, 

PAGE 

I Singh v. Leela Singh . ..*.,. 232 
Shoo Porshad Ram v. Thakoor Pershad *..,,. 294 
Shoo Pershad Singh v. Raj Kumar Lai .... 274, 275, 278 
Shoo Pcrtab Bahadur Singh (Lai) ?;. Allahabad Bank . . 464, 465, 468 

Shoo Prasad v. Aya Ram . 570 

Shooprokash Boss (Mohunt) v. Joyram Doss (Mohunt) .... 415 
Shoo Proshad v. Jung Bahadoor .... 317, 321 

Shooraji v. Ramjas Pando ..*...,,. 509 
Shooraj Kooor v. Nuckohedoo Lall . 288, 291, 293 

Shooratan Kunwari v. Ram Pargash ... 570, 585, 591, 592 
Shoo Schai Singh v, Omod Konwur (Mussummat) , . . 367, 46 > 
Shco Shankar Gir v. Ram Showak Chowdhri .... 286, 564 

Shoo Shankar Lai v. Bebi Sahai 434, 464, 465, 468 

Shoo Shankar Ram v, Jaddo Kunwar ...... 278, 281 

Shoo Singh Rai v. Bakho (Mussumut) . 23, 119, 145, 148, 386, 469 

Shoo Soondary v. Pirthoe Singh .... 14, 224, 36G, 423, 427 

Shoo Soondooreo (Mussamut) v. Pirtheo Singh .... 14, 366 

Shorajooddeen Ahmed (Shaikh) v. Horol Singh . , . . .221 

Shor Bahadur (Bhaiya) v. Ganga (Bhaiya) 25, 2(> 

Shore Bahadur Singh (Thakur) v. Dariao Kuar (Thakurain) . . 251, 252 

Shosgiri v. Girowa 384, 385 

Showak Ram (Rai) v. Bhowani Buksh Singh 513 

Showak Ram Roy v. Muhammod Shamsul Hoda 502 

Shiamanand v. Ear Lai 492 

Shiam Lai v. Ganeshi Lai 317 

Shib Dayoo v. Boorga Porshad ... 78, 79, 86, 88, 235, 246, 285 

Shibossuroo Dobia (Maharanee) v. Mothooranath Aeharjo 555, 557, 563, 565 
Shibkooroo (Mussamut) v. Joogun Singh . . . 158, 159, 201, 504 
Shiblall v. Bishumbor ..,..,... 142 
Shibnarain Bosc v. Ram Nidhec Boso ...... 347, 349 

Shibosoondery Bossoo v. Rakhall Boas Sirkar . . , 256, 257, 298 
Shib Porshad Chuckorbutty v. Gunga Monoc Bobco . . . 221, 255 

Shib Sahai v. Saraswati 400 

Shib vShankar LaU. Soni Ram 472,501 

Shidappa v. Ninganganda . 128, 197 

Shiilhojirav v. Naikojirav 29,30,261 

Bhimbhu Nath v. Gayan Chand 31, 469 

Shiu Golam Sing v- Baran Sing 259 

Bhivajirao Madhavrao w. Vasanlrao Madhavrao . . . 230, 301, 330 

Shiva Rao v. Nagappa 565 

Shivgar Dayagar . Birett-Carnao ......* 533 

Shivjiram t>* Vishuu . 268 

'sUmnrtoppa , Virappa 352,353,354 

Shivram v< Sakharam 317 

Shoilojanund Ojha v. Poary Charati Boy .,.,*. >^75 
Shomo Shankar Rajondra Varoro v. Rajosar Swami Jangam . , 385 
Shosinath Ghoso (Mahashoya) v. Krishna Soondari Basi (Srimati) . 149, 150, 

153, 15*' 

Shridhar v. Hiralal Vithal 

BhrMvas Murar v. Hanmant Ohavdo Boahapando * . 
Shrinivas Sarjerav v. Balwant Venkatesh .... 
Bhudanund Mohapattur a Bonomaloo Boss Mohapattur . 

|*e^ Eull (Baja) v. Biiraj Konwur (Ranee) . . 1 J 
t B|W Oho^dferaln v, Kylash Ohunder Gungopadhya j 




TABLE OF 



CITED, 



Khurno Moyw DAHBPC v. OopaL Lall Boss ..... 81, 82 

ShurnifcOhumlor ?>- Rajkisson Mookerjeo ...... 287 

Hhurut Clumder 8oin t. Muthooranalli Pmlatick ..... 501 

HhuKhw Mohan I>1 Chowdhry , Aukhil Clumder Banorjou . ! 1 250 
tfhyama Oharan Blmttacharya n. Sarnp Chandra Son . . . 531 

Kliyam Lai Hingh . Bijay N. Kumla Bahadur (Raja) . . . $M 9 51 <> 
Wiyam Ohand Jiu (Sri Sri Ishwar) r. Ram Kanai Ohoso . , . 50<i 
^liyiiinanawl T)a Mohapafcra ?;. Rama Kanta Das Mohapalra . . 200 

lrry lUbia w. IJuHHOomutty Dabii ..... ;$;j:$ 
Mulli<k i\ Ttvpoorah Hoondary DOSHPO . . 1 425, fifiO 

idri Ir,sad . ..... ^<j 

Niddppa r. Nin^an^avdn ......... ! 157 

HMdi-HNiiry i))^i>o /'. Door^-i, (Jhurn iScff .... UO, 150, 205 

" *\7 ...... '% .r,wi,inliMi Sarfair . . . KI, M, ,' 2U>! 211 

Njtlii N,ir,i,"n r. FiUch Xar.vn ........ ^i 

Wtllur,v,ia r. Si.l,va ....'.* *7, 77, 7,7,' 08 

1><H ^iMt 

* . , [ [ ^H5 

Kiliamodno Hun^a R^ddy n Achummal ..... ] IOJt 

Nimhlnmafch Panday . (JoiabSinKh \ 281 t ni031tt 

Hhumaui Arnntnl /* Muttamnial . . . , . . * ' 

Ninammal /\ 

Ninaya Pillai /*. g 

/. Vinjamuri Vonkatacharlu I4i> 

ti Sanjivi Kondaya /\ Uraupadi Bayanuua . . ! 485^ 
. Thanakapuday(n . . . , ^ , 

Hilabai />. Huin^handrarao * na 

*.*.,, f> 

..,.. i'I7 
K.ith Na 

l Thakur 
. Ahoon*o 

"- 1\ ('hiritam 
-; - /'. Xalim Ri 
Nifararnayya r. Vrnkafratnaiuta * 
Shammhhat /. Sif-araru (iancsh ...... 571 

Hiiamm Ilamlit (Hhri) r. Harihar Pandii, (8hn) * 

aia fvcr (Sir R) 

* ..... 403 

... 1 * 24l 5J07 
] **.'*310 

i\ MutUt RamalinKm S^thtirayar * 2H/2i t :JO, 

I^H5 

. I^runuU K 'ihuniyt-r /', M<^nakhJ Amtnal . . 7*1 

;* 4 Ha-Jiavaik 1'illay . p t f ! ." JM 

uan(!htti . . . . [ * "' M4 

Kii r. Minnt ....... I "I \ 1I 4S 

fcAmit , Vmlii^iri ..... ] V'Sl ' 

' J^fi Hankara lifiulttli n J*iirvaii Anni . . . , [ [' ' t 



, 345 



(liibkshoiul n Bhauihand 

Himlcy Narain Mohajim. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 

TAG 33 

Sobhanadri Appa Ran w. Sriramnlt* . . . . , . .278 
Boiru Padmanabh Ranyappa /. Karayanrao . 27<5 

Hokkanadba Vannimundar r. Sokkanadha Vanmmumlar . , 210, 27(> 
Solukhna (MuHsnwnwut) ?'. Ranulolal Pando * . 110, 117, 110, ISI> 
ttomaaolvhara Raja n Subhadpamaji . . . . H<>, 152 

Bomasundara Mudaliar 4?, (Janga l&ncn Soni . . 210, 5IJ2, 5113 

* v. Vythilingft Miulaliur . 580 

Somasundara Mudaly r. Duraisami Mtulallar . . . .Ill, li-ii 
dnmungowda r. Bbnrmun (Jowda ,...,.. ii-iJ 
Sona 3M ?* Ifakir Hiand . * . . . - . ">7< 
Konalnxmi <- ViHhuupravacl Tlaripraflatl . IKi, 58 

Sonatun ItyHAck /'. .lu^utwoondn'o DOSRCO (Srccmutiy) ,'H2, Utfl, . r >JJi, 5-ii 
^nnatiin Mitwr /. Kuiion MaiJnh * . . . * 2M 
Sonet Kowav (RaiK<) n Himtnut Bahaduor (Miraa) * * * . 4KJ 
Woni Ham ?', Ivan luiiya Lai. ...,.. 472,501 

8oobIiuH ( hundor Paul . Nity< (ImrnByBaok JH 

Hoobunn Lai fp Hiirburw Lai ^">" 

Ram DOHS i?. Joogitl KiHhoro (Innpto . , . . . 75, It J 
Sahi f. LoIv'tuMifh Mullii Ic . . .71 
ud r. Copal (iir . . . . . . . -H."* 
Kookhmoy (Mumdor l)oss r. Monohurri DHHI (Sninati) * W., WW, 510 
Hocikraj Koowar (MusMtunat MMiukrain) r. (iovfrnfucut . . . ^51,^rd 
Hoondur Kootnarco l)c)H*a r. Uudailhur J*<n*Iwl T^warrt'** - JU 1 70, 177 
Hoowndronath Roy t\ lU'i^ra 
Soorondro l*rHha(l Doboy n 

Hoorja KT /'. Nnth Buksh ShiKh !>^ 

rc^'inuity) />, J^nofmii<lhm> Muliirk . ^4, Si47 27It, 

^74 474, ffilU, AH 

% Huddammd MohafiaitiT . . . * 178 
Hoorjoon (MuHumat) /'. CHlm*<* Hnthmun * . 8rt! ? 1HM 
HOOPJOO INTHhad t\ Krinhan INjrtab < Rajah) , 2HX 482, 4:t 

Hootroo^un Wutjmtty *. Habit sa I>yo , - 1<M>, IW, !5f, 171, 171, 177 

HoroluU 0<MH(^ /% HUonbim Muhuti K<o^hy . 70, Kt, H5 811, iSIJi, :W f 5IW 

MoHhi BhuHswi (ih<M* /. (JonrHli (Uumd^r Uhowt 2^ 

Soudamirioy J)iww^ r. Jogc^tt Ohundcr Dutt 

Hoimdararajan ??. Aruuachalain C'htty 

Howdawww DOHBIH* r. AdtnlnlKtrAtor-dcmtral of lfen#ai . . 474, 475 

Hnw MWIKV i% Orowdy 208 

wro Pmha<l Btmh . JJ47, %tti 

Mitter v. Kwlutn Boundary DIMMW (HrtHfUUttty) im*> 1BO, 1^7, 

i n>& j-% not, m 

Rft! w. Bhyft Jhn . 1 58, W 1 , 9Q2 V 409 407, 47 1 

Hrcenath R^y ^ Ruitunrnalla Chowdimuu - , . 10i), 482, 483, 510 

diyummal * , , 147 

v. Akoanjoo Koouwar (MuHiinmt) * * . 315 

Hrrwram Bhuttacharjrn f. PuckXomokhw Dibift ' '08 

r. Sn^ttath tiuttOhowdhry %%$ 

. Krwtuminii 193, 108, 1 00, 477, 000 

Bri Ohand >. Mmcrtuwtd Bahtt * SOU 

Bridhac (JhattapadJiya r, KalipacJa Ohnokf^rbutty . 475 

Bd Kifiltan T^al r. Kashmiro (MuHHammat) , * * . * 511 
Btbtttuui Jli* A Brlibohary Mlmct . . 88ft, 28i 9 2W), 48 f 48 ? 4$4 
BrwnolMvn Thakup r, Marg^gor , .3^5 

. , , f| WMSto 



OF CASES CITED. 

TAG ffi 

Sri Naruin z.'. Kaghuban* (Lala) . * * * * 311 
Hriiutrayan Miller i\ Krishna Smukri I Mbi (Srimali) . , .150 
tirlnnth D(u i. Han Pada MitttT ,..,. 490,407 
Srinath Uanpopadhya r. Sarbaman^ala L&bi 457, 458 

Srinaih Kur /'. Prosunno Kumar (I how 600 

.Sriuath Hernia >*. Kudhakaunf. .... 157, 201, 424 

SriuivnMa /<. Vnnammi ,*.* 2U 
-- . r> Damlayudnpani .*.**** !W* 
- - -- r, Tinivt'ngnla .* 7 

Vt \vnkata ......... 5U * 

/^. Kuppan Ayyatignr * * * * I HO 




Muiinli/*. KiunuiVtti 
Mu<Ia!i 



ttnmiiaml WIW 
f, Itnjaram 

u. Kuhbantnial 

i. Kitbttammal 



Httbtmniyultt Otwifcty r, KAmttlavalUihAyuranmw 



ui Ayyangar 
1mnar r. 

lyiui^ar r, Thiruvcn^wlathayanj^ar * * IKJ, tt 
Krinivaxannnal /'. Vijayniuinal ****.* <r ^ 
HriivHa Nayudu ?;. V^Ijtya Nayudu f ,*...* iJW) 
Krinima ibc*dcU o. Hivarama JU'dOi ..... 2U 310, 321 

Hrwivasa Hwami v. Hamanuja Chariar , . . . * T>7^, 577 

ri J*ttl Hal u Hiimjbali ........ ^ ^ 

Hrijat Hin^ n Tngorn ...... . IJH), IJ^O 

Sriranutlu t\ Kamayyti ..... 138, 330, l-iSn I'M 

Hrmuniiiu Naidu /". Audalammal* .,* ^'^ 
hilttlkftrttr. (Jojuil huwlay ......... a; || 

Stt*vnut ^. JanKi Itallabh ..... * ^'* 

a. // rr <h<Miifi of ... J** 

Ayyan^ar /*. Sfriuivuia Swariii .,. ^"'* 
'', Unj Niiiuiitn IN'iiJmil Sir"h ,.. *'^* 

Siib,i Smpjh '. Sarafra/ Kiinwar . . I 7, Jt77, !>/H, IJ'.U, IJM7 

Suhba r. Vfnlv.Uranti. ..* **'^ 

Ayyar r. (ianaMa Ayyar 

r. 

Hubbaiuma , Kubrantanyam 
Htibbamrtuil <*. Avudaiyamiuai 
Subbatma ?. Vi'iikutakrlHlinan 
tiaita '. Hubbiwnwt 
w, Kama Kau * 
Bubbaraya ^ Kylana 



Hubhft Itaddt f* (Uttrngfiiaruriia ,* 477 
Snbtayya A 



OF UASE8 CITEP, 

PAGE 

Subbramania Mudaliar v. Kalian! Animal . , * * . 79, UJt, UU 
Subindra v. Buclan .......... 5<i7 

8ubrahmanyam v. Venkamma *...**} ^IJ, 13 1 
Subramania Ayyar ?% Oopnla Aiyar ....... IJ08 

- ??. Sita Lakuhmi * . . . . . f>31 

fcJubramania Mudali n Valu ........ UOt) 

Subramaman Ghotii z. Arunaehfjlam Ohotti . , . las, I i<> M, 47t 
Subramaniyayyan r. Hubramananiyayyan ..... i57 ( . T ^8i{ 

Subramanya ?'. Sadasiva ........ ttl0,:ui 

8ubramanya Ayyar ?\ Srwtary of Siatc . . * * , 5t7 
Subramanya f Jhotfcyar ?'. Pndmanahiia (/hfttyar , . . , ;^i 

Wubramanya Pandyn (Jhokka Talavar ?\ Kiva Hubramanya Pilhw 2.'JH, ;t!0 377, 

517, r>IS,ffMl 

Subramanyan t?. Parama^waran . * * * * * * ltt!, Hiii 
^ubraya t;. Nagappa . , . * . * * * ,310 
Bubudra Ohowdrayn (Musaamaut) v. Oaluknath C-howdhry * * I.'U, L0f( 
Buooaram Morarji ?. Kalidas Kaliiiuiji ...... U^** 

Hudabart Pftwhad Hahoo p. Lotf AH Khan ..... 2117, :US 

Sudammd Mnhapatiur v, Boiioinall*^ . I01J, I*M f 170, JHIJ 

........................ ?\ Koorjomoai'u l)ay<'<* * . * i!*i*K &*il t HUt 

-- ^^^. -- -~ ?\ Soorjo Montv Oi'bw* * . * 178, 17i* 
Sudarwanam Malntri i. Niwwirnhula Mnwtri . ^n, 2^2, 2W f 2*> f SJW, ^10, 



Sudharam Palar . Hudhararn , ...... * 7 

Budinht Lai f?. Hhcobarati Kqor (MuHHummat) . . . . .511 
Hugooram B^gum IK Juddoobtuw Hubayo . * 4H5 f $JU 

Sukalal ?', Bapu Bakaram ......... l t 

Sukconath Hanoo ?;. Ktiro Ohurn Huruj , , . , . sUt) SJ5MJ 
Hukhbani L%1 ?'. (Juman Singh ....... J37, 173 

Sukli Lai , Bihambhar . ..... IJW 

Sukumari Bcwa /?. Ananta Malla. . . * * . . , UO 

fht> 
Ackisui Kaliib ft Bava Malimyar (Hbitik) ..... 5H 

Sumer Hingh ^. Liladhar . . . , . . , . * ;H2 
SftmbhoochmKi^r Ohowdry , NarAini Dt^Ina . * * * 1W 
iSumbo (Jhumlnr Roy P, <Uiug.</hmH<*in ...... 4SJH 

xSumnm Singh /.'. Khadum Hingh ..... . :Hu 

Humrun Thokur v. UIum<Iormun Mwc*r . . . % ;iK), 3UI 3 
Hitmtfuddiu Oaolam Hum^ln 17. Abdul Hum k iu Kaliiumlditi * . 511 
vStimundra Koonwar in Kal<> ( Jhurn Hingh *** ,MI 
Hundar (Hutmammat) t^ Parbaii (Mue*mmafc) * ' # III 327 
Sundarabai t?, Jayavant Bluka]i Nft<lgawda .,.,.* 
BundarAlingasawmi Kamaya Naik t. Kaina-sawini Kaiuaya Ntuk . JHH, 01i 
Sundaramayya ?;- Hiiitmina. ,..,.... ^85 

Suadar Ul w, Brij Lai ......... *0ft 

r. (Jhhilar Mai ...... m< S80, tt&l 



Hundararubal Ammitl ?;. Vt>gavanagurukkal * 557, 5W), 57.'* 

Hutulari Ammal ?', Hubramauia Ayyar . , . . , Ml* f>!t 
Hundari Letaai w. l^Urubari I/?taiu .,..,.. ;NJU 
ji v. Dahlbftl ..... . 87 t SI2 

Oui . Ookulanand (Jhowtlhury ..... 0( 

Bundor Bahu v, Monolwr Lai *,*, 
v. Bhivnamyana ...... 

r. fUng^ami Mudaliar ***. 



TATHiH OF (1A.8HS CITED* 

PAGE 

Suudraraja Ayyangar *?. Jagauadha Pillai ..... * 280 

Sunker Lall v. Judoolmns Kahayo ....... 296 

8tmkur Bhari i Swami (Hri) v. Bidha Lingayah Charanti ... 6 
&unkur Pcrshad v. Cioury Pcrghad ....... 270 

hjimtosh Ram Dosa v. Oera Pattuck ,.... .00 

Suppammal v. Collector of Taajoro .*.. 549, 552 
Huraj Bitnfti Ivumvar (Mussarmit) v, Mahipal Singh . 504 

fcJuraj Hunri Kocr v. flhoo Proyhad Singh , . 225, 230, 285, 287, 200, 300, 

301,310, 311,31.7, 327 
vSurajmani (Miisammat) r. KabiNath Ojha . ... 412,443 

Suraj Narain 7'. Ik])al Naraia ....... 348, 340 

Suraj ProHad(Lala)?;. (iolahChand ...... 281,319 

vSuranipalli Ban^tramma n, Mtn^ampalH Prain1)axc . . 78 ? 81, 210 
Surat, Collector of r. I>liiwingji Vughhaji ...... 130 

Mrthoor r. (lossain Dons AM hoop * . * * * 340 

lUIx-f /. Alohrndrouath Xatli . . . 324, 551, 552 
iSimndra Kt^liav Roy /', Dnur^amiudari DawHcc . J15, 117, Mi>, 173, 181, 

204, 205, 557 

^urondra Nnndan T)as i, Pailaja Kunl Das Mahapatra 113, 110, 120, 190, 

198, 199 

Surendra Narnin Sinha / 1 . llari Mohan Mww^r * 231 

Hurcndm Math (iln8c r. Kala ('hand Banorjce . * , * * 183 
Survndra Natli Surkar r. AM Ohandra Hoy . 277, 403 

r (CJhowdhury) v. Molw-nh Kini Monraiu (Musst) 487, 'UK), 401 
Kumar! ?% <Jandhrap Sinc^h .,,.* 3KO 
JVftWitlr. (Jt)Uh(Jliaad ..... . 300, 3 M 

Hurja i'rohadf Uila) r. ^inlah Cham I ....... 200 

tSurjokuni Nimtii /*. Mih< sh Chuiidcr IMifl ...... 1HI 

iSurjyumoni Oanj /, KaliKatifa ha: . , . (i"2 <(>, <>7, ft>, 71, 7IJ, 74 
Hurjya NaruiiiiSinith /. Sinlli.iry LUI ....... 

iSurnuwt Khau z>, Kadir Had Miau ....... 24 

Hurll w, Karain I)a . . . * * .371 

Huruhanuiwl I*urbwt *. t)*'o Sin^? Purhut ,**,.. 572 
Kuru h Naruin Chowlhry r, Siu*w <fohmd Pandt-y * 203,307 

Huryanarayana /. V'cukatnnuu.uia ,*. 121,120 
a Murti /% I'unuitanna ,* 352 
Hao ttnhii'lup (Sii Itaja KIM Wnkala Mahapati) r, Uangwlhan* 

Han Bahadur (Sri Haja Rao V(*nka(a Maliapati) * , .102 
' (MiiK'tunnmiut) /'. Indranund Jha . * . 100,157,11$ 
Pillui r, ChoKKaiinj'.'im Pillai ...... 32i* 

Hyitma ('Jira Ittihya r, Pi.tfiill.'i Sund.iri (Juptiii * * 499 

T. 



A!) . .. 

Mohan 



Titkurnwnl Hbiglt tt l)i linn! Kwri 



IWIwur Hinh ^ Ptiiawan tttngh ....... 330 

*, Vultt A 



iJ OF CASES cri'EIJ. 



Tara e*. Kridlww ....... IMS, .*>8S, I til, IWJ 

Tara Ohand v. Rceb 14am ...... i>5, 2ft, *M I, 1155 

Tara Chand Ohosc n Pudum Loc-hun <JhoH* . 1J50, U f 

Tarachund Boso 2% Nobcin Chunder Miller . . , . * . fU7 
Tarachurn CJhatterjco v. SnrvBh Clumdcr Mook<*rj'c . . 110,11*0 
Tarachurn Mookcrjee 4?. Joynarain, Alookcrji'u .... &"><, 257 

Tarakoswas Roy (Kumar) i. Shoslri Shikart'Kwar ( Kumar) tfftf, 5^i, 5;t2, r,'J I, 

."! 

Tarakumari (ThaJkurwii) <'. Ohaturbluij Xaru-yun Sin^Ii . . U>tt, ^IM, 517 
Tara Mohuix 



Tara Mimoo Dibia (MiuJKt.) ?>. Dovnarayuu Hai . * . Jit^ i;{ft, IS{I 
Tara Munnco DovHoa ?f Moto BunoAncff . *'M t *: 

Tara JNTaikitt r. Nana UtlcHhiuau ......... JH 

Tarings Churn Banorjcio w, Nund Coomar Banrrj( k d . . , , J77 
Tarini Oharan (Jhowdhry i\ Maroda Sundati J)twi * . i:if>, liil, 171. 177 
Tarini C^iaran Oangtili r. Walon ....... lt.% 

Tarini Pnwftd ( Shiilfa'rjVo /% IJhola Nafh M*)(U<'rjiM' . . , . ls| 
Tarmo (liuni i\ J)JIH< I C DUSM I 'NI (Mtisnutuniitiit) :M 

Tttro Bib<c /', <JJuwini,m ......... *VIJ 

Taruo]c<Hmml<T Jthuitaclurjcc /'. Hurw Suukur Nuail>,il . . 
Taruok < ihundiT Poddar . .Fod^Hhur ( 'hundcr Kofndo!> . * 



v. Attiumlai Mudali 



Tarunginc'o DOBHW^ w. (Jhowdliry Dwarkamtlh MiwNaut . , . , *2li! 
Tasouwar Ali (Hyud) t\ Koowj Bohart* Lai .,,*.. ilUJJ 
Tatayya w. Kamakrwluiamura ....... lso f 4H! 

Tatyarao w. Puitapa ....*..,. iH2 

Tayammaul . Hawhaolui-Ha Naik<-r ... l#l, lUtit, i 7:$, 51 1 
Tayubunowsa Bitxx* /?. Bham KMoro Kay (Kuwar) * AM 

Tayumana Rcddi , IVrumal Jteddi ....*.. UJO 

Twluck Chuml^r r. Shama Churn ProkaNli ..... 1|, 7r 

Tecncowrco Chtttlcpj<> /. JX'iioiuith Uarrj^ . . . J 7S H i^H 1 
Tejpal r. Oan^a .......... ;>S7 



Tokail Won Mohmi Jvmadai r, Danaata Kumar Sinh . * 5, OIL (17 t 7iJ 



Jtawtaj /?. Jtlurbkum Nu 
Thaith Ottahil Kutt<* Arumu & Puruahofotm 
Thakoorain Hahilm a Mohwi Ull ....... list 

Thakoor Dtjyhoo (MutMuttmt) ^ {Ui llaluk lUm . , 4:>0, 4N, 4^ 40 471 
Thakurmiini Hingh . 1M Rani Koi<ri - SJ70, ^e), MiJ 

PmhAd (Cliowdhry) /. Blmgbuti ...... JKI* 

ngh *. K'okbo Hingh ........ 4W 

Singh w, Dal Hingh ...... , 17^ 

Tliana, Oolk'ctor of, r. JIari HHanun .,,., WI^'f^A 
Thandavaroya Pillai r. Khmimiigam Pillai ...... HflU 

Thandayutluipani Kiutglar % HangumUha Kaugiar * !IAI 

Ttiandvaraya v, fjubbayyar ...... , A8i> 

Thangam Pillai ft Hujipa Pillai ....... aaH, SWH 

i n Kamu Mudali . ..... t m t i^i 



TAftbtt Ott OASES CIMD, 



Tliirutkipalli Kaiuau Mouoii & Variangattil Palisseri Hainan Merxon 101 
Thiruvongaclath Aiyangar v. Ponnappiengar . . * . 58t 

Tholappala v. Vonkata ..... , , . tt 

Thukoo Baco Bhide v. Kuma Baec Bhide . 00, 132, 333 

Tika Ram n Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki . . . 511 
Tikaram v. Shaxna Charan ......... 500 

Tiluck Roy v. Phoolman Hoy ........ 482 

Timannacharya v. Balacharya ....... 245, 253 

Timmappa v. Narsinha Timaya ........ It2() 

Timmappa Bhat v. Parmcshriamma ....... 80 

Timmappa Ueggado v. Malialiuga Heggade * 201, 380 

Timmi Iloddy r. Achamnia .,.. 344 

TinKourMj Chatb'rjco v Ucnonath Bjincrjeo . t * * . 175 
Tinumoni Djtsi r. Nibarun C'hundor Oupta ..*.. 4# 
TirlxTii Sfthai /' Muhammiwl Umar ..... 220, 371, 371 

Tirbhuwttu JJaha<lnr Mingh (TJmkur) r. Jtanwshiu* Balwli Sin^h (Kaja) Jr8, 

Il$0 t 170 

Tirhoofr, Coltootor of, . Iluroi^wlmd Mohunt . , 1 58, 201, 202 
Tirtok Nath Shukul /?. Laclmun Kuuwari (Musaitimat) , 1H> 

Tirumalachariar r. Amlu.1 Ammal , . 401, 403,401 

Tirumamogai Animal IlamoKvanii Ayyaiigav . , . . * 370 
Tiruvambal lA'Hilcar o. Mauikkavaehaka IJcwikar ..... 5tt3 

r riruvongada Ayynn^ar r. Kangayyitn^ar ...... 5H7 

Tiruwngadatli Ayyan^ar /. Hrinivtuta ThaihiW-hitriar * , 58{), 50U 
Toolrtoy J)aH S<al ;. Ltic-khymonc-y DiiHwct (Sia) . , , 417, 4 JO, 401 
ToolHoydaH Ludha /?. JVinjiTricumdaH . 258,305 

Torit BhcKwun Bonncrj*^* i\ TaiUfiroHiinuo BoniW'rj<(* . * . 333, 351 
TotifcKam t\ Raru Charau ..... . . , 214 

Toiawa i, Jiawawii .......... 3H7 

Tottftkarft Attuttttr MatnakiU Narrain JManibudripad /v Puvally Mtuakat 
Trivikrama Nambudripad ....... . Ift3 

Tottempudl Venkatarataam w. Tottompttdi Bcahamma 245, 240, 200 257, 04 
r rricloohun Hoy % Eajkislien Hoy . . . . . . S31 

TribhovandttB w. Nxnith ..... * * * * 245 

TribhuvAtidiw Euttonji Mody v. (iangadaH Trionmji * * 531, 535 
Triohinopoly, (Jo) lector of, i\ U'kkainaru , . * * .515 
Trikam Pufflhottam y. Natha Daji . , ..... 411 

Trikurndas J)aiuudhar v. 11 uric hut Morarji ..... 02,550 

Trilochun Chuok<Tbutty i\ UnHh (Jhutwlor I^hiri * 4HO 

Trinibak w, hakwfiman .**..*. 547, 575 
Trimbafc Balkrishna t\ Narayan Dainoclar Dabholkar * . 280, 300, 310 
Trimbak Dixit n Narayau J)hit ...... 233, 235 

THmhak (iopal Pariohak Krinhtiarau Paitdurang * 57*J 

TrimlMikpuri (iuru 8it;ilpuri n (Jangabai ..* 571 
Trimbuok Aitunt ft (JojtallHta't .,. 201, 202, 2iM 
Tripura Chttrau Bswmrrj^ i. Ilarimati Uaiwi . * 4## 
Trijiura Hundari Dcbi n% Dalwhina Mohun Itoy , . , * * 335 
TuffuuauK)! HowiKtin Khan (Syud) M. Rughooiiaih Pmhad * * * M 
Tukaium t>. (junaji . ..... 74, 444 

' ...... ..... " v. Narayaa ..*,*..* 417 

'J'ukaram AnbaiflnK ??- Kaumhaudm , . , , * $01 
Tukiirambhatw. OangaiumMullmnU(iujar . . , * * .112 
Tuljuntm Morarjl *. MatlmrivdM . 411, 405, 406, 407, 408, 470 

Opal liai . , , t * f , Ai07 



J'ABLM OF CASES CITED. -VCl 

PACfC 

Tulahi liani <\ Babu ....*.... 305 

- n Bohari Lai ....... 17, im, H<) 

Tntaidas Mahanta ?. Bojoy Kifthore Shonu* * . * r>r>r>, ;i*;7 

Twenty-four Pcrgmmahs, Collector of, i\ Dcbnath Hoy Chowdhty . * ii*i:J 

U. 

U((a Bogam 7*. Inmm-ud-dm . . * . * . I7f 

Udai Chundor OhuekorbuUy /. AHhutnHh Das Mnzumdur * * . 1s*J 
TJdai Haj Hin^h v. Bhau;wan Baklroh Hinh ...... fjs 

Udaram Hitamm *. Hanu Panduji . . . ;J(M, Ml, ;wi, 3i-M, :i5(l 
U<laya Aditya Dob (Rajah) t. Jadub Ul Adityn I)**b . * . 2i {* 2iW 
Uddoy Additya Dub A*. Jaclub W Adittya J)eb ... 3^'l, 25 
Udhar Bingh ??, llanoo Koonwor (MuHwumtit) . , * * * -IM 
Udoy Chanel Binwas w. Panchoo Bam Biwa . * * * :^I 
Ugarclmnd Manakchand & Ma<Iapa Somana ..... TfcJS 

Ugri (Bai) w. Pttrnhottam Bhudar (PtM) . . . . * *f 

[Jjagur Singh (Ohaudhri) r. Pilam Sin^h (Chaiidhri) * ^5 

Ujl r. Hathi Lulu ......... :*', it 7, ti 

Ukoor J)OHM /% C^liiindiT S(*kiu' DT^M .,*#* .VT'i 
Ifmabai /*, HItavu Pitdinanji , * . . . . . H7I 

Uma I)(*yi (Sriamfi) w. <lokm>lamind Dtw Mahapalra L'tH, |.", I!) I, Ji#2, Uss 



I Fmaid Bahadur r. Ucloi Chawd . 77, ;W T tm^, 40I t iru 

ITma Sundtirl Dalx'fM'. HourobiiK^ J)alKto <** t*'M 
Uma Hunker Moifcro r Kali Komui Mostumdar . . . * 141, J^'i 
Umbica Pronad Tuwary u. Ilamwahoy l^rvll , , . f -910 
ITimtd v. Khatoabai ..... , 3 t iffflr 

Umecl Hathbbg A Oomau JJhaiji ..... H7 t ,1IH* 3iff 

C7mwl Kika t>, Naj<inda Narotainrlmi ....... ft9 

lJmf*8chandra Dutta /'. Kavan<Hwar Prasad Hin^h * * . * IM! 
Umrnan^a /,'. Appadorai Pailcr ........ il!i7 

Unirao Kunwar ?>. Badii ... W.'t 
ITmrithnath < ihowdhry P. ({ourcMiath (ihimdhry . * a f IU*, 210, ;W7 

Urnnt K<w*no i% Kidornalh (<hro * . * *. , * HI 
(Jnnoda IVwad Roy ?. Knikinti ........ ^ij 

Urinopoonni Diwwa p. (*tni^a Narain Paul .... ,'tJJ 
UjK*ndra Krinhaa I)(ib Dahiulur (KumarA) ^ Kabiu Krishna Utw . . fW3 
U^wndra I-al Borul /. H^m (Jhumlra I*ral . A:U V r3t) IWO 

t. (Ufiuda Nath Muklwrji 9 47f> 
4% Th*mla i)Al . . t . . :^$ 
Mytl . (lo^imth Jk^m , aasl, Hi*1 f f*t^ 

Biitdcwri Pronax! ....... I7SJ, I|(N 

OlK)ma Kuclmtn t*. Bholaram Dhuhl ..... * * SH 

Upooroop Tewary ?, Banclbjcw Huhay ( Italia) ***** 284 
Uppala Kaghava Clmrlu ;, ITppala Ramanuja (*harlu * * * ,311 
Urjun Siutg (Rawui) ?'. (IbunHiarKt Hinpf fftawut) , , . a7 t iJfK) 



VadttH Mamidigadu t;, Kotipalli Jflamayya *,..., 477 
Vadali Kama Krlntnama r, Mnnda Appalya . , . , , ^Df 
tjillubluv! t. Biwih Khulial Dalpatrain * 207, 7$ 

HIM r, N*tfan Filial ....... jj^tU 



SOU TABLK OF OAHJilB UU'EU. 

i'AUL 

Vttitlyttiiatlia Aiyar r. ;Vi>ttStf.mi Aiyar . , . 88, 222, 23!, **U4, *'i55 

Vaikuntam Amniangaj ? 1 Kallapiran Ayyangar . . 152, (50, 235, 271 

Vaithilingam Mudali tv Murugoktn . . . 130, MB, 174, 175, 201! 
Yaithyanatham ?'. (<angarazu ........ r ;J 

Yallabha v, IMndiumdanan .... ..... 7 

Yallabhdas .Tamnadits r, Sakarbiii ....... *ll-i 

Vallabhram Shiviiarayau p. Ifarigaugu (ttai) ..... *i7l 

YalHnayagam Pillai r. Varhcho . ...... 2!, 527 

Valloo ( 1 3ictly (Ptuilu'in) r. Sooryah (!htty (PaiilionO . . . iiW) 

Vain r. <ian,<jja .......... 82,21:! 

\ aiubhai /% (iovliuZ Kashimtth . . ..... 1.W, I*M 

\'aiuan \ r isluui ({oklialc /\ VaHiidev Morlha1> Kale . IU17 

Vumlravaii Jt-ki w fl^-I) /? Afanilal < < huiti!al (PaU-1) 18, 10, H f 211, l f Htt, 

Km, 107, II K, 12*, Jailor* 

\'!in^rtl.i iM't^hitfuIn /'. \'ju) M aIu (Javar.uuina . 401* 

Vurjivau U'lti^ji /*. <h<'Iji <Jf*nilaH ,..*. IS7, IM 
VfMonji Mwarji /. ( lhanda Hibi . ...... 47H 

Vamlo ViMum Manohar /, Kanicliamlra Vinayak Mttdnk 127, 157, lll, lt7 
Vnmuluvan /'. >Sccrvtary of Stsitu . 20, 27, I(3 t 121, I<>2, hn% HU, 4n; 
Vromdcvn Aiynr r. Ncgapaijuu Duviutf Itatutni (*(uinutt<H> * . flMH 

a Padhi Kluuhin^a tlani /\ Mu^uni I)r\an HaUflti Muhnpidrula 
(lam ...... . 2 MI 

Bhaf /'. Vcnka(c u 1i HuiMiav , .'t'tO, '{'*!, 'U& 

^ ----- . ^ Kui'ayan Daji l>utnl< ...*.. 522 

Vastul<iv Mothhat Kalo r Krishna ji Italia) (iokhuic * . * . II U 
Vuto K<(r (MuriKamiti) r. I'oM^him Siti<;h , ;IIH, Iifo 

VnyirHnadlia /*. Appu . . . . * * . IH^U'J, IH 

Vt'dainrjti r. VVdaiiayn^ii Mmlulmr ..,,,. UO 1 ,*, U7U 



V<H*ribl>haelra Aiyan r* 
iu Ajubhni i\ 



I'ilbvy '. Narniin I'illay . . * 117, IIH, I an, U7, 
Nayani r. Krrappa Naidji .... *')ttt f #'J(t, 



Maagatiinui v, Itaridlatttmli Vfcrwyya . MX, 

\VUauki Vfiiknf'ib KriHhna Hw (Kajah) r, Wtikata Kama Iwikdiuii 
Natmyya 112, II , II, UH, J2(, 121, 12, 127, IN), IIB*, Hh% nH, 



Anumirc/w r. f 

KriMhtutOMMyur /. Kaliyauaniftuiiyanpcar . , , fi^fi 

\Vttci&tHuh*<ila Chi'tt.v /'. Parvaihani *,.. 227 ItHil 
-', VfticuU )AiU'lu*tnw (fttmtal * " , . 228, KH2, UWI 
tv J'andavt-Hwara (hirukal . . 4 , . o 

t A Parjaram ........ ftffl, 3J)I, 411 

V4*rtJfaJIHhrWhari?* VWmu llabaji IJt'ri , * . * , 4f(/> 
Vi ukurttma tf. Havilmmma , * . , . f 2H,2lH t 2l7 
Vunkiwnmtt. (Jcniiialagadda) ^ Hubr.(1iman2am (JoumUagatida) , 12.1 
Vt*nkauria v, AiUmma ........ 07, $w 

* *<.* 147 



TABLB OF OAHKB CITED, 



Vcnkappu i\ . . . 

Vunkappa liapu v. Jivaji Krinhna . . lu.'J, Id5, i;to, jrsi 

Venkata & Hubhadrn- ..... 11:5, lilt, ] II, irl' J,V 

Venkatachala Pillai ?\ Talnq Board, Saidapct , , ' ,-,s:i' >;$* 5s I [ r,V 
Venkataohatopati /% Hubbaraywlu , , . . , *;^ ~ 

Vonkatacharytilu ?'. Kan^aHiaryulu , B:J, &" W, .To, Jif/w 

Vcnkataoholla Maniyakaror ;% Thafhnmtnal . *VM! 

Vonkfttaoholla Pi Hay r. Chinnaiya MudaHnr ..... [ ;JM? 
VonfcataolK'Hum r. V^nkafaH\vnmy . , . , , ! !*,;{ 
Vtnkata}?in ?'. Chantlm * . . . . , f Jol, I*U 
Wnkata (lopalla Nurasimha Row Bahadfmr (Ftajnh Sp;itu n !}*'. Lal^huia ' 

Vcnkatna Ro\v (Hajah Huramni) . .'H5, ,14*^ ;^fi 

Vtuikatakririhuamma n AnnapurnamniA , , j^ |***j |^| 

Vonkftf* KriHtnayya ( rvalavagutita) r. UkHhmi Harayarja (Kalviucnntn)V!, ^ 
Vonkafa Mahapat-i Surya Hao BahmIur(Hpi fUjn IUc) r. Vi'nkaf AMnfmitati 

<rangadhara Rama Rao Bahadur (lion. Sri Uaja, !Uo) , . , ;j*^ 
Vonkatammal?;. Audyappa Ohftifi , su, si, sfi, iu f ;i;t:i 

Vrnkata Nrtranimha Appa Rao Uahatiur {Ilii*ja ( [i} r. V'nKa(,i ViihwlJi'* ' 

bania .Fa^annadha (jnpala I Low lUIuvilur (lUj.ili Sur'n;iui) 10, IIU* n:\ 



I 

KanHiruha Appa Row Vtahwltti' {Sri it^ija) * t J.ulit^i'Uliy Aftjui 
How Hfiluutur (Hri It-ija) 1(18, ! ltf t 1 1, I \,\ |;,a, |sa t 2JW, tfint, ^*il 
Narauimha Apf>a How (Hajah) t\ Court of \Vanh . . , 
Namsimha Appa How (Hri Iia|*th) \ H^n^iy.y.i APJM, Uow (Sri 

" 



v 

Appa How Baluicluv (lUjah) /'. Numyya Appit Row 
Bahadur (lUjah) * * * . t , ^ j|| ;i ^- 

Nanwimlui Naiclu ^ Bhiwkyakiwlu NaUu '. ' * \ * 14:1 
ytwia Pillai , Hubluuniual . II ^ Ki7 UJH, Itii, \M, rm ftr,"> 
, Nayauim JJahadur (!Ujah) i?. IXutura Jfc'iityi U, u . . ' Itf J 
a r, Mi-or.v ^ahai ...'.!] ;j*| 
---- ----- /<. S<'txt!ut*i'Iif 

VVnUtaruma KrwIuM. lUu . 



Pantuiu /, 
Rajit ^ 



n, 

Rao ^ Puro^hottnw ..... * -, 

" 



, . 
Vftakato'8tiuy Hftfeipttf Krishna Knx harlur (Sri 

OourfcotWardM . J4|4 tu ^ -, fcw 

Vonkafc0aiya fc Vikata Oharlu . , ; 1 ***' **' *** JJJ 
Vonkatasa * * 



Vonkatmia STayudu ^ BhaUgopa, Hhri ^Irnt^op^ Swami'/Hhrivjin) * 



, . ' t 

/ w " ,"''' A f !> 

' 



, a* . . / 17 

. Bmnunmu. SsJustrulu . . * rr "ti 

* "" 



. . . . r 

Qaru (Raja Ohfttlkaat) w. VmikaUmmamtyyamrm/(IUi 

ya & J 

t* r 

on. 






XC1V ffAB&E OF OASES CITED, 

PAGE 

Verxkopadhyaya v. Kavari Hengusu ...... 9* 90 

Vonku ?>. Mahalinga ....... . , 1G3, 101 

Venugopala Naidu ?;. Ramanadhaa Chetty ...... 312 

Vorabhai Ajubhai y. Hiraba (Bai) .... 102, 131, 388, 389 

Vwaprashyia, ?;. Santauraja ....... 105, 150 

Vidyajwrna Tiriha Svwmi w. Vidyanidhi Tirfcha Swami 555, 558, 559, 501 , 

502, T>05 
Vijaya ?>. Rripafchi ... ..... 97 

VijiarangiMn w. LaksHiimaa 18, 54, 55, 111, 132, 130, 377, <m, 435, 439, 411, 

451, 452, 453, 454 
Vijli(Hai) v. Prathalakahmi (Bai) ...... * 400 

Vinayak t\ (topa! ......... , 320 

Viuayak Narayan .To# ft Oovimlrav Oliiutaraan ,Toi? 183, 18^ 185, 527, 53U 
Yinuyjtk Nar.smvh ?>. Datto (iovind * *,,.. 258 
Viuayivk Vithal BIia^ w flovind V<'nkJitKt-jh Kulfcwui 18(>, 4H7, lSH t 4SJ> 
Vinayek /Vnundrao ?'. rjuxumo^bauo *IOf T (f}7, 170 

Viwbhadra (Jowdu t. (uruvoiikafca Oharlu ..... , 307 

Vlfapagnvaiftraa. r. Sanundrala *,... 2S3 
Viraragavu tt, Hatnalinga , * , . . . , . H7 
Vimniitkuiiu TTdnyan tf. Kingaravulu ,, Si(H> 
ViriiHami Nayudu t>. Subba Haw **.,,.* 59U 
ViraMangappa t' Ki(lra[>pa ....... :J7, 57 

Virasangappa Hhctfci /, Rudrap|a Mhottj 43 1, 401, M9 

Virawvami(Jh(itti w. Appnnvami ('iu'tti . . 30, 71 75, 77, 7H 
Viraavami (jramini w. Ayyasami (iramini ..... 300, 301 

Virayya /; Tfoumnauta ,..., J t() J {3 
w, Nfilu;aii^avit *.,., 270 271 



ht Animal it. Aniwwamy Kastry , 7*J, sn t HI, H2 83, 151 1, 252, 253 
Visalatchiui Aiamai /;. Subbu Pillai ..*.*. 522 t 523 
Vwhnu Humbudri t* Akkamma ....... 23,249 

Vbtinu Nambudrl (ilraiijoli Xllath) w. Kcibnan Naiubuilri (Wrftnjnti 

Hteth) ......... HI, 14* v 173 

Vhhnu Hhaiubhog w. Manjamma . * . . . B2, 95 07 
VinlivaiiatU //, Narayau , * * ..... 471 

Vlvhvanath Gaugadhar ??, Krwhmiji (ian^/Mlhar . . . 350, !>IH> 

Vwhvanath Govind Dt*shmauft r. Aambhat ..... $H(> 

Vwviwiadha Naick ;. Bimgaroo T<sroomala Naick . , , . ,201 
Vlavariuthan /'. Hnminatlwi ..,,,, 32* 5*1 
ViihaldoH Manifikdatu 1 . tfcshuhai . , . , , * 413 
Vtihal o. Prohlad .......... im* 

VltEuil Jlimiumaih f. Ilariluiyfd , ....... 412 

Vilhalroo Krfehnft Vitiohurkar w. lUmra> Krinlma Viiushurkar . ;{$nS 
Viibappa ^ Havitri ...,.*., 407, 4IH 
Vithoba^Bapu ....... , IM, VJM, m 

Yifclioba Bavtt i;. Uiirita Uu,va ........ 30<J 

Vlibu &. Ooviada ....... 37, Sl% 870 

Vithu D^tidi y, Hatwji ....... 274, Sfc7!> SJOB 

VitU DuttMt . Vttwuwimi* ...... 184, 301, 3(M 

of) y Hntruuiuirltt ^mw^khttradaxi (Itojali) * . ^(iH 
Yaiauixab^i . H5, 1*7, 299, 301 

Vrijbhukandw w. P^rvati(Hai) ...... ^12, 4(if>, 4HH 

Vrijbhukaadaw Dwarka^daa i;. Dftyar^m Jtulavji . 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, &CV 



Vurdyengar *?. Alagosingyengar , , , . . , 
Vurinah Valiar (Rajah) ?;. Yurmah Mu ilia (Uavi) * . . 
Vyanji & Sarjarao Apajirao ........ ;^7 

Vyasacharya r. Vcnkubui . . , * . . , Is5 

Yyaij (Jliimanlal t>. Vyan Ramclwmtat . 10, f.'M, IM, 173, I7,J, 17r 

Vythiliuga Muppanar ?'. Mjayaihamm.U . . . , . * M7 
Vythiliiiga Pandara Haunadhi t\ SoomiHUii'Iara Mufliliur , . . ;;' 
Vytbiuatha Ayyar /% Ycggia Narayana Ayyar , . , . iiH,^|J5 

W. 

Wa^hcla Rajnanji r. MaHludin (.SJwkh) # ^77, |^ 

Wahid AH Khan /. Tori Ram ...... 4 -J7*f 

Wajud HosBcin (Shah) i. Nanku Singh (Baboo) , ;ifW 

Wajid AH Shah ?, Dlanat-ul-lah l&x ....... r*7 

Walihau (Muwmmmat) w. JogcHhwar Narayan * . . . , r*IM 
Walbai w. Ffcorhai .......... n* 

Waman Ka^hupati Bova /. Krishna ji Kashir.iv !!w,i * . Ii, IH 

Waunathan r. Kcyakadatli ....,. ,' w ^ 
Watmm ami ('oiupany ^\ Kiu (7hau<i Duit ,.,,., i*:*l 
Whifo /% Bishto ChmiiliT !<MI* ........ L'MS 

Wooma Powhad Hoy /'. (Jriwh (JhuwliT I*r<i'hun'lf> , , , , un 
Wootua H(K)HfIun*o DtiHrii 1 ^ r Dwnrka NaHi Itoy * , .ills 
Wnomiwh OhmuicT BiKwai) r. (UHhinohini iMwi * % , vj*i 

Woormwh Ohun<{<*r Sin'ar ^ Di^anihttnn* I>'I#* I *T ...... U'*M 



V. 



Yachcrtxldy C'ltinna 

Yamuahai /'. Nanabhai ,*,... si, M f ?H, !*;J 

^';Lmn;t\ a r. ha\.m<iti IHmar.io Kullv.iririi 
YariuinaUii /'. AFrWiuhai , 
--- , r. Narayan Morc.shvar JN'mhf 
Vaimniula Vi' 



i !*uttu Slwnvi /', Hiuihahni . . . f , . , IV* 
Yiuihvantrav i\ KttHhihat .....,. K> 
Yokityamian /'. A^iimwarmix .,... ,10 ^ 3,lf i^ .HKt 



u t>. Midatatia Hatiyu-si , , , ;{)j* f ft 10 
Yenumalu (kvurid^vamma Oaru (Sri Kajah) /'. Yonnmnl^ lUn^ndum 

(km (Sri ttajtbh) ....... , tf^, TI7 

YthirJttlu Naulu i\ Mukimthtt Nalilu ..... I7fl t s!4^ 

Yuaf Ait Khan *. ChuMnwKmgh ....... Ill 



, BftkhUwnr Biugh ...,.. 57tt 
Khau ....,, (4 

...... *** /. Itulurnum ...,.. il2lH 

Chum Jioy . 47, 4<M| 



TABLE OF STATUTES, REGULA- 
TIONS, AND AOT8 CITKH. 



BTATUTKH. 



21 (too. IH. c. 70, s* 17 
37 Oca. lit o. 142, s. 13 

39, 40 Goo. III. 0. 70, 8. 5 
40oo. IV. o. 7J,H. 
5, ft Geo, V. a 5, a. 112 



1793 vnr 
xi 

IB 10 X 

xtx 

ft. 2 

. 3 

8.4 
w. 4-0 
, 7 . 
as. 8-15 

1813 xvrrr 

J8M-XXIX. . 



1802-XXV 



1B04 V* a. 25 
1817 VU 



. 4 



, 7-14 . 



KHUULATIOXS, 






XCviii TABLE OF BTATUIBB, IlKGULATION^, AND ACTS CITK1>. 



I'ACl b 

1872 III. H. 3 ......... ' 2lr > 

187711 ............ 3' 

HL a. ........... *83 

8. 4 ........... 5 

s. JMM21, 15t ......... ;15<J 

nr ............ ""> 

r ............ lm) 

JKMO IIL s. 89 .......... 5 

IHOZIV ............ wm 

J 81)0-1 ........ - 350 



ACTS OK THK <JOVMKXOIU!KNKHAL IN COUNTOIT* 

-XIX. (Ourolow) 37 

185(1 -XXI (ftwdom of IMigiou) 21, 23, W, 7H, S3 f 105, 1 10, III, 137, 

BiU, 371,375 

1 H50- XV. (Hindu Widows Kemamago) 21,37,40 

tf. 1 . . . . .37 

tf.3 '.,',, ' 137,* 2 17 

H.4 425 

H, , . . . * . I 
H. 7 . .51 

J858-XfAi (Miiui% Bengal) .,.,, i!7<, 52H7 
l5J-Xf. (R(*VMiU(^Sul'H),H, ft I- 4f)H 

XLV, (Penal Codo) ....... ^7, 103 

m. 372, 373 gtl, 31, 1WV 

8.375 07 

H, 378 70 

ffl. 404-408 <M 

18f$:j XX. (fteligious KndowmcntH) , . . 578, 5sl, fixl, 585 rl *r//. 

H. ,'* AHA, 5H7 

H.4 5HU 

SM 7 ft 587 

H. 11)' . 5S7, 588 

, 13 * , . . . 0510 

H. 15 / 51*3 

w. 10, 17 . . * . * 503 

H* 38 5&% 504 

m. 10, 20 5tM 

H,l . . . , * . 595 

s,l2 570,51*5 

(Suooomion) . , 110,542 



TABMS OF tn'A'l'UTKS, KUGULAriONti, AND ACTS CITKD. XC1X 



. 
1805 X. (Succession), 8. 47 . . ...... ;>!;$ 

s.48 ........ f,J,~ 

8. 4 ........ r>i5 

s. IK) . , . 111, 101,513, Till, AJ5 
a. 51 ........ #15 

B, &t ....... 5is 

8.55 ........ 5*5 

*m. 57-77 ........ 515 

s, 07 . . ..... in, Js;j 

fl. 00 ........ 5.!** 

H. 70 ....... 515, frit* 



. 85 **...# fi!* 



88.88-103 

. 03 

M.08 

H. 100 

' KU * 

H. 103 

MM, Km -177 

,SH. 113-1^3 (Part XVI,) . 

MH. U4 y 115 



88.167-177 ....... 171 

a. 187 ........ nn 



, 
1800 XXL (JSfativo Converts Marring DiNMolutirn) . . , tfi 7, 



-I. (Omlh K 

H. il* * . ]Mi, u:i,5ft 

H.22(H) ...... lit. lft 

IV. (Divora*) . t . ...... g,^$ 

* Jt3 . * , . t , + 9 m 

ttohiid, form IU .*,,,,* 7 

XVIIt (StAmjw), HMuKL IL arb 31 ..... 111 

(Court Fo) ......... art 

. 2, art 17, ol & ..... |IK1 

(Hindu WillM) . . , ai f 107, 1 14, 205, 818, 411, 4**% ^*i4 
. i? 107, 1 1 1, 171, 183, W, 448, flBl !, t 



. ..... 81^ 3tif 301, fi*7 f 5IW 

. . . . . . * . .17* 
187i---TX, (Umitation), HchiHl. JL art 1211 , litff, il 

XXHl (I^inloiM^ H, 4 ..... , 4 017 

. , ..... ,12 

........ 174 

112, 174, W 



TABLE OF tfTATUTfitf, liaiWLATiONtf, AND ACTS OITKU. 



*H, 107 
88.48,49 ........ 32 

s. 60 ....... B, 63, 174, 175 

B. 101 ........ 171 

a.102 ....... 171,220 

s.103 .,....,. 173 

s. 106 ........ 205 

as. 107, 108 ...... 105,321 

u. 100 ........ 2U1 

a. Ill ........ 480 

s. 112 ........ 90 

a. 114 ........ 221 

H. 115 ..... 172, 174, 271, 489 

Ilf. (Marriage) ......... 5B 

IV, (Punjab Lawn), B. ,1 ........ 5,28 

IX (Contracts) ......... 8, 31 

& 11 ........ 76 

0,25 ........ 523 

H. 26 ...... 3 

a. tJ5 ; illus, (a) ....... J$ 

a. 60 ...... fJ2,B3l, 500 

8.73 ....... * 59 

da. oo-oi . ....... 523 

8. 187 ........ 75 

XV. (Christian Marriage*) ....,,, i25 
XVIIL(Kvidnw) ......... 175 

iH7,'J TIL (Madnw Oivil Cfcrnrtn), a. I ...... 4,28 

1K7I XV. (t!}w'diiWJ>iBtriots),a. ....... 210 

1875 UC (Majority) ...... r>, a I, , I!W, ,W7 

H, a ........ 47, 100 

XX, ((Joutrai Jtanviaong UWH), H. 5 . * * . * . JK, 28 
1870 X* (Bombay Kevonoo Juriadiotion) .,.. JJ.10 
XVIIL (Oadh Law), 8, 3 ....... 0,2^20 

1877 J. (tyttoiflo Porformaacos), 8. 15 ..... 2H 3il 

8.21 ..... W) f 7 

. 31) ..... fiOU 5(^ 

3, 42 . IfU, 105, UiO, IW>, :K)5, 4W 

)3. , 577 

a. 43 . KJ8, 501, mm 

s5^ ...... HOB 

a. 51 ..... 107,501 

XV, (Limitation), H, 7 ....... r>uK, 5 

HobwL II. art 118 ..... KJ5 

art 110 ..... Jttil 

art. 1^0 . mm, 55H 

art. 125 ..... 504 

art. 141 ..... 000 

1H7SXIT, (Punjab UWH) * ..... 4 

& I ....... 55H t M) 

* (8temt) Rolwd I. art. 38 ....... 114 

XVIL (Dokhan AgrkwlturiHtH* liollef) ' ..... 488 

, 3 - . , . M5 



. DO 



5400, 



TABLE OF STATUTES, KEGULATIONS, AND ACTS CITED. ci 

PAGE 

1881 V. (Probate and Administration), ss. 101-105 .... 324 

s. 154 . . , . 548 
XVIII. (Central Provinces Land Revenue), s, 136 ... 359 

188211. (Trustees) ..... '. . . 581 

IV. (Transfer of Property) ...... 21, 280 

B.2 ....... 00 

a. 6 ...... 84, 500 

S3. 13, 14 ...... 525 

s. 17 ...... 540 

s. 20 ...... 525 

s. 38 . 291,292,310 

s. 39 , . . * 84, 85, 90, 91 
s. 44 ...... 301 

8.45 ...... 239 

S. 51 ..... 307,513 

8.52 ...... 93 

S. 58 ..... 89,91,95 

s. 59 ..... 89,91 

8, 85 ..... 281, 282 

$3.88 ...... 95 

8. 91 ...... 499 

s. 99 ...,., 318 
8. 100 ...... 95 

8. 117 ...... 540 

s, 122 ...... 523 

s. 123 ..... 197, 523 

8. 127 ..... . 521 

s. 128 ...... 322 

$.129 . , . . . " . 523 

XIV. (Civil Procedure), s. 11 ....... 5 

s. 13 ...... .01 

ss. 20, 28 ...... 352 

s. 43 ....... 352 

s. 209 ....... 

s. 266 ...... ,675 

s. 437 ....... 281 

s.539 ...... 577,578 

XV. (Presidency Small Cause Courts), s. 16 4 
Ig84r- II. (Partitions, Madras) ...... , 340, $59 

t TOJ. (Repeal) ....... ^V.W^fiW 

1885 XVII. (Oontral Provinces Wards), s, 24 . , . >* ' " ^ 9 

1887 IX. (Promoial Small Caude Courts), Sched II. art. S5 , ' L .69 

, m (Bengal Civil Courts), s. 37 . ~ . 4 

XVH. (Punjab liand Bovenuo), ss. 112-135,, 158 '. . * ^9 

1889 VII, (Certiacates) ....... !. 204 

XL (Lower Burma Courts), s. 4 . . . ,28 

XVI. (Central Provinces Land Kevenue), s, 26 * . . . 3^9 
1 890 -VL (Charitable Endowments), s. 6 ...... S95 

p. 8 ...... 506 

VIII. (Guardians and Watfds)> 8. 6 



s. 19 . . . 06,213,214,215 
s, 21 ..... ,' 6* 
S.25 . , . . ,," 74,217 



oil TABLE Otf STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND ACTB OITHD. 

PACK 
IBiMJVHL (Guardians and Wards), s, 28 ..... *!!!!! 



B.43 ...... 41 > 

1892-IV. (Court of Wards, Bengal), a. 2 . . . - 270 
183-IV. (Partition), B. 2 ...... <*^> 350,, 57. 358 

s. 3 ......... * 57 *> 5S 

a 4 . 331,341,357,358 

" 



SB. 7,8,9,10 
. (Land Acquisition), B. 31 



8U7- V. 

X((ileiMralClat'B) f s.3(18), (53) 
1808 V. (Criminal l*roocduro), . 88 ...-* 301,850 

s, 100 
Chap, XXXVI 



11. 401 
8.552 

),s. 13 

J 81)0 11* (Stamps), HoluMl. L art 
HHK)Vr. (Burma (JtmrtK) 
J907 IILtPwvinoiiillHHolwncy), H, 2 (r) 
1U08-V. (<JivaJ'rowdunO,B. 
H. 



H. 31 
H.50 



i.58 ....... 7 

H.54 ....... 5WH 

H. 51) ....... 7r> 

H.58 ....... 73 

H.UO ..... 84,478,575 

8. W)(w) ..*,.** ClHI 

H.U2 ..... 577,fi7 T 570 



. 

J, owl L r. 



r, 13 . %H1 

orcl iL r. 1 ..... 80S 

onl xx. r. 1st . . t 855 

owl xxL r* # :*3 78 

r.57 . . * . i 7 

onl xxxit. r- 7 * - * &77 

utd. xxxiv, r. 1 * * * * $H$ 

owl xivL r* i , . . * #7 

App,D.4 . ...... t 281 

IX. (Limitation), , 6 ...... 



TABLE OF STATUTES, UI3<rCLATION"rf, AND ACTS CITKI*. 



. (Limitation), Soiled, i. art lib ..... U>r>, 1(H 

tirfc. Hi* , ... HiJ, 170 

art. 120 . . . 72, :Wi, 5UH, rrx 

art. 125 ..... . Wl 

art. 12fJ ,,..* IJOfj 

art. 127 * 231, .'till, IWJI 

ttrfc 128 ..... . % 

art. 121) , '.* 

art* Ml * . . . 5t},*J, 575 

art,. i;*2 . * . . , ii, :u.% 

art* 1IJI ...... WMi 

art. 141 ...... W! 

art i-u . no, :J:H 

XVL(lloiHirofci(m) t . 17 ........ IM 

. r> ........ j<tH 

1900 IIL (InHoIvuncy, Prcwi^noy TOWIIH), . 152 ..... T^M> 

VJC. (Anand Marria^ctH) * . . . . .68 

lull XVL(BnAl,otct., Civil (JcmrtH) ...... 

1012 VIC. (I**nKil, Bihar, On w:i and A:i .;iin Uuv i) . , . , I 

,*, 1.1 , . IM * 

X, (l)w*r<xOH. 2 ......... *^? 

XUf. (Di'lhi UW.S),M. . ..... I 

. (Hiutlu Dwjioiiiiou ctf 1'ro^rty) * . tfl, 2*0 ftUit, <>! 

M, a . . . r#aj t wn,ri: 
H, 3 . * ft;*.**, 5;i'i 

H. I . . , * . 52A 



Act* of tfa (hwriw / Mt$nt# fa (fauwit* 



1884 TV, ( 

V. (tfiulnw Ixwal ,Buard) t K, 51 
1 f. ((^niiml(UM>UMfX . 8(3(1) . 
. (Malahac Marriagi'H) 

M. 

1808 V. (Malabar Wilh) * 
190S8 t (Courfe of Wftr<te), H. 17 



. n 

Aeh qf thr (fowrtwr ttf ttomhttif itt 






. Wt ....... ;I70 

. 07 ...... . W 

IL (I'mpartiblo Kntat<^) ........ ^5 

(lmiuttt>lu Bitottw) ........ SW. 

(ImpMtiliki KHttttm), M. 1 ...... . 2Ktr 

1000 VI* 



M. SB , * , . Btt-t, IKW 

H. i* . . . Mt $ rM 

*.'*...., U3 * 



(Und 



Civ TABLE QJb" BTATUTBB, IwaOUIiA'ttONB, AK1) AOTB CITED, 



O Vn.(AnooBtor l Bl>obt8j t B.8 ....... 32B 

<?. 4 ....... 7tt 

8.5 ...... 277,288 

(Hereditary Offices), B. B ....... ^ 

1870 V* (Lwid Bovmw), SB. 113, 111 ...... Stftt 

1887 VI. (Matadars), ss. 9, 10 ........ 

1H8 Vf. (Gujarat Taluqclara) ........ 05 

1<J01 r, (General Clauses), s. a (18), (45) ...... 17S 

1005 I. (Court of Wards) ......... 109 

Acts o//7ic Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal Iti ffaiiHciL 

1870 VIL (Land Rqu^fcration) ........ 317 

IX. (Court of Wanla), s* 01 ....... 108 

1880VIL (Public UMOJiuil* Kocowry) ...... 4S*1 

181)7 V. (Partition) .......... :J5i> 

1800 L (Ctonoml OlaiwcB), . 3(12) ...... . 17H 

1004 in. (Soitlod Hlitotc'*) .,,*.. 21,510 



jlcfc o/f/te 

1000 

1 XL (Agra IVnanuy), 8. *2iJ ...... I7H, 

XII. (Uml Rownu<'),8H. 105-MO, iiUU 



Atti of the LitMltitwnl'>Uiw(irtu)r of the United l 9 rOMitCG& in (fa 

HH)0 IL (Oiidh HoUlud Witatt-B) ....... WO 

t ((fononil CtouM. 4 (6), (42) ...... W8 

IV. (Court of Wank), H. 37 ....... 100 

/Ic/ of the Lieutvwitl'ifowfnnr oftha I'unjtft in dtmnril* 

HJOO-4V, (JTaghim) .......... 9S61 

im- It (Court of Wards), . 15 , . , , . -, . 100 

^l^ of the ttwtenant'QQverwr of Mwtem Bengal pni A#$&m in Otiwwil 

10091 (OoAOznl Olauc), s, 5 (24), (5S) ..... - 178 



^tcf of the I/ieutMMnM]tnwiMr ftf Burma in (Jouncil, 
1898 I. (Qoncral Olaowa), , 2 (5!>) ..*<*.. 17H 



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND 
AUTHORITIES. 

Acharya's Codification in British India, 1914. Calcutta. 

Agra. Agra High Court Reports, 1860-1868. Agra. 

All. Indian Law Reports, Allahabad Series, 1875 to date. Allahabad, 

Amcor Aii and Woodroffe's Indian Evidence Act. Calcutta. 

Bain's Ethnography, 1012. Strassburg. 

Jituiorjc'o's Law of Marriage. The Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhana, by 

Sir Gooroodass Banerjoe, M.A., D.L. 3rd Ed. 1913, Calcutta. 
Boll and Taylor. Reports. Calcutta. 
Ben. Sol. R. Reports of Cases determined in the Court of Sudder Dowanny 

Adawlut, by W. H. Macnaghton, 1791-1848. Calcutta. Now Edition. 

1807. 

Bon. 8. D. A. Bengal Sudder Dewanny Adalut Reports, 1843-1862. Caloutoa. 
Bhattacharya's Hindu Law. Commentaries on Hindu Law, by Jogendranath 

Bhattacharya, M.A., D.L, 2nd Ed. 1893, Calcutta, 1 
Bhattacharya's Law of Joint Family. The Law relating to the Jopat Hindu 

Family, by Krishna Kamal Bhattacharya. 1885* Calcutta. 
B. L. R. Bengal Law Reports, 1868-1875. Calcutta. 
B. L. 11. F. B. Bengal Law Reports, Full Bench Reports. Calcutta. 
Bom. Indian Law Reports, Bombay Series, 1876 to date. Bombay. 
Bom. H. 0. Bombay High Court Reports, 1802-1875. Bombay. 
Bom. L. R Bombay Law Reporter, 1890 to date. Bombay. 
Bom, P. J. Printed Judgments of Bombay High Court. Bombay. 
Borr, Borrodaiio's Reports of Civil Causes adjudged by the Court of 
Udalut for the Presidency of Bombay, 1800-1824, Bombay. 
Boul. Boulnois Reports. Calcutta. 



Calo. Indian Law Reports, Calcutta Series, 1876 to date. 

Clarke's Reports, Calcutta, n ' 

Clarke's Rutes and Orders. Ru|es and orders of the Supreme Court of Calcutta. 

1 Calcutta. 
C L, R. Calcutta Law Reports, by O'Kinealy and Henderson, , 1877-188^ 

Calcutta* * 

Colebrooko's Digest. A Digest of Hindu Law, translated by H. T. Oolebrooke^ 

1801, London. 
Colehrooke's Hisoellajieous Essays. (Asiastic Researches, Vol. VII.) 1803* 

London. New Ed. by K B. Cowell. 187^-f, London. , < 

Cowell'sTagore Law Lectures. 1870, Calcutta. ^ , , .', 

Cun4a^hw'a Digest. A Digest of Hindu Law, by H, S. Cunmngha^ ^^ 

'a^fcH^ Calcutta. 





OV1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND AUTHORITIES. 

Dattaka Chandrika. A Treatise on Adoption, by Devanda Bhatta, translated 

by J. 0. 0. Sutherland. 1821, Calcutta. 
Dattaka Mimansa. A Treatise on Adoption, by Nanda Pandita, translated by 

J. C. 0. Sutherland. 1821, Calcutta. 
Daya-Bhaga. A Treatise on Inheritance, by Jimuta Vahana, translated by 

H. T Colebrooko. Stokes' Hindu Law Books. I RC5, Madras. 
Daya-Krama Sangraha A Treatise on the Hindu Law of Inheritance, by fcJri 

Krishna Tarkalankar, translated by P. M. Wynch. 1818, Calcutta 
Daya-Tattwa By Raghunandana, translated by Golap Chandra Harkar, 

Sastri, M.A., B.L. 1874, Calcutta. 
Daya-Vibhaga. Law of Inheritance, translated from the Text of tho Vyavahara 

Kanda of the Madhaviya Commentary on the Parasara Rmirti, by A. 0. 

Burnoll 1808, Madras. 

Elberling. A Treatise on Inhcntanco, CJift, Will, Sale, and Mortgage. 1844, 
Seramporc. 1850, Madras. 

Fulton. Fulton's Reports of the Supremo Court of Calcutta. 1845, Calcutta. 

Gautama's Institutes. (Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii.) 
Ghose's Hindu Law. The Principles o Hindu Law, by Jogoudra Chundor GhoBo, 
M.A., B.L. 2nd Ed. 1006, Calcutta. 

Hay. Reports of Cases in the High Court of Bengal, 1802, 1 8(53. Calcutta. 
Hinduism. Introduction to the study of, by Guru Prosad >Son. 181KJ, ( Jalcutta, 
Hyde. Reports of Cases argued and determined during the years 1802-J804 

in the High Court of Bengal in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, 

by Edgar Hyde, M.A. 1864, 1805, Calcutta. 

I. A. Law Reports, Indian Appeals, 1 808 to dato. London* 
India, what it can toach ua, by Professor Max Mullor, 1883, London, 
lud. Jur. N. 8. Indian Juriat, "New Sorl&s, Roport$ of High Court, Calcutta, 
1866,1867. Calcutta. 

Jarman on Wills, 4th Ed. London. 

Jolly, Dio Adoption in Indicn. 1910, Wurzburg, 

Jolly's Tagor Law Lectures, 1883. Outlines of an History of the Hindu Law 

of Partition, Inheritance, and Adoption, by Julius Jolly, PhuD. 1885, 

Calcutta, 

LyalFs Asiatic Studies. 1884, London. 

MaedonelTs B&stoty of Sanskrit Literature, by Profrwor H. A. Macdoncll. 

1900, London, 
Macna/ghton's Hindu Law. Priuciplos and Precedents of Hindu Law, by 

W. H. Macnaghten. 1829, Calcutta. 

Mad. Indian Law Reports, Madras Series, 1 87(5 to dafco. Ea4r0. 
3JW. X)6o. , J^oisiojie of Madras Suddor Dowanny Adalub, Madras, 
tyCa4, IL C, 1(| iMras High Court Reports, 1862-1875. Madras, 
Mad, Ik jr.* 'l^m& Law Journal, 1301 to date. Madras, 
M&oJ, S, E. ito?$ Sudder Howauny Reports. Madras 
Mame'isi Vill^g^(>mmTOties 1871^ London. 
l^taac Miiller's Chips ffccm a Getw^ft Work6hop. 1867, London, 
1 f$s Miller's India, wta* it q^ tec|i p, 1800, London, 



UST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND AUTHORITIES* CVli 

Maau. Institutes of Manu, translated by Sir William Jones. 

Ibid, Translated by Dr. G. Biihler. Sacred Bookd of the East 
vol. xxv. 1880, Oxford. 

March. MarahaH'H Reports of Cases on Appeal to tho High Court of Bonsai 
18(U, Calcutta. 

Maynti's Hindu Law. A Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage, by John T) Mavuo 
8th JbM. 10W, Madras. 

M. I. A. MOOIV'H Inrlian Appeal Ouuea. Reports of Decisions of the Privy 
(Council, 1830-1872. London. 

Mitakuharn. A Commentary on tho Institutes of Yajnavalaya, by Vijnyanes- 
wara, translated by IL T. O>lbrooko. Stokes' Hindu Law Book*, 1805, 
Madras. 

Miira's Law of Joint Property, Tho Law of Joint Property and Partition in 
British India, by Ram Charan Mitra. 1897, Calcutta. 

Montrimi'H Oases, 18iC, Calcutta. 

MortoyVi Digest. An Analytical Digest of all tho Reported Cases decided m 
tho Supremo Courts in India, in tho Courts of tho Hon. Eawt India Com- 
pany, and on Appeal from India, by William H. Morloy. 1 800, London. 

MwroV* Malabar Law and Custom. 3rd Ed. 1005, Madras. 

Mulla'H Civil Procedure <,WK Oivii Procedure Co<l<, 1008, by D, I<\ Mulla. 
HMO, Bombay. 

Narada Kmriti. The Innf-i tutoq of Narada, translated by Dr. Juliun Jolly. 1876, 

London. 

Ibid, in. Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxxiiL 
Norton, L. 0. A Selection of leading Cosos in tho Hindu Law of Inheritance, 

by tho Hon. J, B. Norton. 1871, Madras. 
N. W. P North- Western Provinoea High Court Reports, 1869-1870. Allahabad, 

Reprint, Eajkoto, 

P. L. H. Punjab taw Reports. 

Pat. L, J. Patna Law Journal, 19lf$ to date. Patna. 

Phillips and Trevcdyan. Law of Hindu Wilk 2nd Kd. 3014, London, 

Punjab Custom. Punjab CuHtomary Law, by C. L, Tapper, (j.B. 18SI , Calcutta. 

Iiaghunan<ianft*B Hmritin. A (Commentary on the Daya- Bhaga. Ud vahatattwa. 
Hirtley's Trilwft and Catoj of Bengal 1802, Calcutta. 
Hoeht und Sitte, by Protoor Jolly, 

Banwvati Vilasa, by Pratapa Eudra Beva, translated by Rev. Thomas Fpulkos. 

IBSl, London, 
Law ol Adoption. Tho Hindu Law of Adoption by GoUj) CPmdra 

Barkar, tatrl M,A. B,I*. Znd AL 1010, qalctttta* , , , 

Law of Iriharitanctt. Tho Principles of tho ffijacta LaW of 

ntoititttoc% by Hajkumar Harvadhikari, 1882, Calcutta. 
H<v. App. C. Bovofttro's Appeal COHOH. 18(J!J, Calcutta. 
Hhomfs' L, R. Th<^ Law llnportcr, containing Judgments o! tho Calcutta High 

Court, I878-1S80. Calcutta, 
Sarkar'H Hin<lu Law. A TrcatiBc on Hindu Law, by Oolap Chandra Sarkar, 

Huxtri, M, A., JJ. L. 3rd M. 1S)07, Calcutta, 
Hmit!i' fcjarly Hfotory of Indii^ 1904, Oxford, 
Hmriti C'Katulrika. A Truatlno on tho Hiatlu Law of Jnheritanco, by Dovanmt 

Bhi-tHt, tranlatfl by T. Kmtniwaawmy Jyor 18W7, Madras. 
tfri Kriihttiv*ii CommmUry on tho Daya- Bhaga. 

ivn4 Custom of Hin4u Castes within t/b# Dekhw 



OVlll LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND AUTHORITIES, 



Hindu Law. Hindu Law, by Sir Thomas Strange, late Chief Justice 

of Madras. 1830, London. 
Strange ' Manual Manual of Hindu Law, by T. L. Strange. 2nd Ed. 1803, 

Madras. 
grange's Notes of Cases in the Court of the Recorder and in the Supremo 

Court, Madras, 1798-1810. 1827, Madras. 
fcjubodhini, A Commentary on the Mifcaksharo, composed i;i % #he thirteenth 

oontury, by Bisheshvar Bhatta. 

Trevolyan's Law of Minors, 5th Ed. 1910, London. 
Tapper's " Punjab Customary Law." 1881, Calcutta. 

Varadaraja. Varadaraya's Vyavaharanirnaya, translated by A. C. Burnoll. 

1872, Mangalorc. 

Vidyosagar's " Marriage of Hindu Widows." 
Viramitrodaya. A Treatise on the Law of Inheritance, by Mitra Misra, trans- 

lated by Golap Chandra Sarkar, Sastri, M.A., B.L. 1870, Calcutta. 
Vivada Chintamani. A Commentary on the Hindu Law prevalent in Mithila, 

by Vaehaspati Misra, translated by Prosonno Ooomar Tagoro. 1803, 

Calcutta. 
Vivada Ratnakara. Translated by Sastri Of, C. Sarkar and Babu Digamvar 

Cliattcrjec, 
Vyavahara Mayukha. A Treatise on Hindu Law, by Nilakantha Bhutta, 

translated by H. Borraclailo. 1827, feat ; another translated by Mr. 

V. N. MandJik. 
Vyavahara Nirnaya, by Vadaraja, translated by Dr. Burnoll. 1872, Manga- 

lore. 
Vyavastha Chamlrika. A Digest of Hindu Law as current in all the Provinces 

of India except Bengal Proper, by fcJhyaraa Charan Sarkar. 1878, 

Calcutta,. 
Vyavo/stha Darpana. A Digest of tho Hindu Law as current in Bengal, by 

Shaw, Churn Sircar. 2nd Kd. 18H7, Calcutta. 

West and Buhler. Digest of the Hindu Law of Inheritance aud Partition, by 
Baymond West and Johann Goorg Biihlor. 2nd Ed. 1878, Bombay. 

Wigram's Malabar Law and Custom. A Commentary on Malabar Law and 
Custom, by Herbert Wigram, M.A. 1882, Madras. 

Wllkins. Modern Hinduism. 2nd Ed. 1900, Calcutta. 

Williams, Monier. Religious Thought and Life in India. 1885, London. 

Wilson's Glossary. A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and of Useful 
Words occurring in Official Documents relating to the Administration o 
the Government of Britifih India, by H. H. Wilson, M.A., F.R.S. 1855, 
London. 

Wilson. Religion of Hindus, 

W. R Sutherland's Weekly Reporter, Reports of Oases by the High Court of 
Bengal and by the Judicial Committee, 1865-1876. Calcutta, 

W. B., Act X. t R. Do, Act X , Rulings. 

W. E. 4 1 0. J. Do. Appeals from Original Jurisdiction, 

W* Bk'.OL & Do. Civil Rulings. 

W. B.; % :% Do. Full Bench Rulings. 

;W. B^lfyd ,,,! Do. Privy Council Rulings. 



HINJDU LAW. 

INTRODUCTION, 

HINDU law, a tho term is understood by British admmistra* what is Hindu 
tow of justice, consists of the rulos of law which are believed l 
to have boon generally binding on Hindus in matters to which 
they relate, at tho time of the commencement of tho British 
dominion, with such variations aB have been mado by British 
Illation, or by the established custom of any tribe, caste, 
family, or locality, 

Sir H. S* Maino says : l 

** Indian a law may bo In fact affirmed lo consist of a very great number 
o local bodies of usage, and of one sot of customs reduced to writing, 
protonding to bo a diviner authority than tho rest, 8 exercising consequently 
a great influence over them, and tending, if not checked, to absorb them* 
You tuuHt not wxderfctand that these bodies of custom arc fundamentally 
distinct, They arc all marked by the amo general features; but there 
are considerable differences of detail." 

To uo the wordH of a learned Brahmin judge of the High Court of 
Bengal,* "Hindu law in a body of rules intimately mixed up with religion, 
and it was originally administered for the most part by private tribunals. 
The nyHtem was highly elastic, and had been gradually growing up by the 
assimilation o new usages and the modification of ancient text law under 
the guiso of inter ^rotation, when its spontaneous growth was suddenly 
arrested by tho administration of the country passing into the hands of 
the Bnglifth* and a degree of rigidity was givw to it which it never before, 



, , . 

** There appmrs no trace of an intention on the part of the British 



* Kiln*'* " Villftgft Communities/* in tho maturity of life, the rule of 
pp. 52, 5ft. native law dissolved and, witfo or 

* Lc* Hindu. without; his intention, was to & great 

* Thin wfori* to th law of tho extent replaced by rules having their 
'Rantriwi, ;w.< p. 10, origin in English law books, Undor 

* Banrrjw'o '* Law oC Marring!*,'* tlw hand of the judges of the Sudto 
3rd ocl,, p 7. Courti, who had lived since th^ir 

* Kir K. H. Maine {'* Village dm- bayhood amotig the people of the 
munition*" PP- *i, 45) MJ-y t "At country* the native rules hardened, 
iH( fctHwh of ih*i jiKigft of tho Hupr^mw and eofttracted a rigidity whioh th^>y 
Court, wfeo tei fawn tr*iiwd in tho iwvttt had in >al practice."' Sft^ 
1 KngtisK &ok>ol , of n^otel pkAdlbg, article by Mr. Jwtioo Kair ol Mate* 

' 1 tJw K^i ',!a (Jonttmpmrary Rfriw for 



ir.t. 



2 DOCTRINE OF FACTUM VALET. 

Government to arrest the development of Hindu law in its natural course* 
The intention seems to have been to secure to Hindus a faithful administra- 
tion, under the control of the British Courts, of their own law in its true 
spirit such an administration as similar tribunals of their own might have 
furnished. And the early British tribunals were accordingly assisted by 
officers learned in the Sliastrae, 1 who were doubtless assumed to be also 
acquainted with the law as actually received, and who could consequently 
keep the Courts in touch with the living law in its growth and development, 
and thus enable them to administer a law adapted to actual needs, instead 
of leaving them to piece out a skeleton from the dry bones of archaic texts. 1 ' 

** Thejpunf/tto, however, failed to answer the purpose, and were (Unplaced. 
Thenceforth the Courts have been driven to rely upon such aHsmtanco as 
could be obtained from their own experience and from formal evidence, 
together with Mich tiid an cou!<l be obtained from writ cm of reputation, 
and at tinuw have shown a tendency to fall bock upon the bare texts of the 
tihastrati) without assurance that thow texts were practically adopted an 
part of the actual current law, when evidence on t ho point wft not produced, 
as it seldom was." a 

** Questions of Hindu law never have been nor will be decided with 
reference solely to what the law wan when originally propounded by Manu, 
or the very earliot writera. The- Hindu law which the (JourtM admmwtor* 
and arc bound to AdminiHtor, is that which they, availing thewBeivew <> all 
the Houreeg of information at their command, iind to be the Hindu law a 
recognised and accepted and acted Ujxni by the general body of JlinduH 
for the time being." 3 

** The duty of an European 1 1 udgc. who in under tho obligation to admin i*- 
ter Hindu law, is not BO much to inquire whether a dwputed doctrine in 
fairly dcducihlo from th earliest authorities IIH to awwrtain whether it 
has been received by the particular Aohool which govern** tho tlMriot with 
which he ha^ to deal, and has there been fianctioncd by usage. For, under 
the Hindu ytem of law, clear proof of wage will outweigh the written toxfc 
of the tow, * 

P*ctuin The doctrine, ** Quod fiari mn debuit fattum eofe/," which ha Ixwn 

'* treated as especially in force in t ho Bengal nchool on the ground that 

Jimutavahana Hay that * l a fact oannot be altered by a hundred twctw," s 
ha given rinft to a distinction bctwwm mattor of legal and mattont only 
of moral obligation. A Thft doe-trine i rlefmed by Sftntri <* ('* Sarkar 7 



1000. The* dxtroJiuMmxioty of KnghNii * (Mlwtttr ft/ Madura v. JMwfaw 

judgoH t< ad militate r to tho Hiudun Ktwmhn'ja Nnthujitithif (IHfJH), It 

tiMpenonallawljy which thfythcmghi M. I. A, M7, at p. 4 ; I It. 1* R. f 

Hindu* WKS Ixmnd, hatt indnwci them \\ (I I, a( p. 12 ; 10 W, U. !, <'. 17, 

to ac^'pt nw living law all that i to at p. Si I. 

be found m thf* anckmt law book, * ttoyti Rhttya, h. II, p*ir, 3'K 

although much may haw* Iwcu Thin l tho biuliug autlurity of tho 

in pra(;tkM% and !H other- JlJ<ngttl wihwil; pwt, p. 14. 



10. v. jtttimattiMmtmwt (lHiH>} 2 t, A. 

11 Phillipn and Tr<nvlyn*K 4 * IMW 1 19, at p. lit; 22 Mad, SUM, afc p, 4^ j 

ntotiag to Hindu Willn," Ifit nl pp. 2! All. 400, at p. 487 ; (t. VV, M* 4!27, 

16* 17, ft t p. 44B j I Horn. L K, 22i j /^ivA. 

* JTrtAfiarom4n' ^4i (^ Jf.) v. majijw v. flwmva (IH75), 1^ Bom, 

^ anfa A>t>Ana AM* (1*64), 4 & JU R, H* a 804, 
] T at pp. 8$ 



APPLICATION OF HIKDU LAW. 



as follows ; <e An act or transaction done by a man in the exercise of a right 
or power, natural or recognized by law, cannot be undone or invalidated 
by reason of there being texts in the >ShastraH prohibiting .such act or fraav 
action." In discriminating between the two forms of obligation "tin 1 
actual practice of the people Iw commonly accepted as a guide ; and thai, 
which may in words appear to be a positive and imperative injunction may, 
in the light of actual practice, be regarded as merely directory or monitory 
but legally optional; as addressed to the conscience rather than to Ui<* 
tribunals; and may consequently fall beyond th HCOJK* of compulsory 
enforcement. 1 Whore the act. i illegal, it is not justified by Urn 
maxim. a 



In throe matters Hindu law differ** from other 
of law, viz. in the family law, which arises from what is ealU*d 
by English lawyers the joint family Byntom ; Hecundly, in thn ** w * 
law of adoption ; and thirdly, in tho law of sum^um and 
inheritance. 

Throughout British India,, (jurtftions jvlaihij; f<> Urn su<w*s- As>|rifMti'ni <f 
sion, inheritances adoption, and marriago of JliixltiH, to cast , jto7w! ?iiw. 
and to Hindu religious usages'* or iiiHtiiiUlioiiH, um r 
according to Hindu law. 

Although there IH a variation in their kn^nage, {ho 
onactmontn, which now proneribo tho law to bo 
in the Courts entoblmhod in Britinh India, aro in 
a,groomont in making thin provision* 

The following in a list t>f such e 



Tho High Court of Jti-nil, 
in tho oxoreiHo of itn ordinary 
original civil jurisdiction. 



The High Court of Hadrnn 
in tho oxoreiso of ito ordinary 
original civil jurisdiction, 



** Law 



(Hug) v. 

4* #4, Ht 



V, 



iil (!eo. JIL 
read with (hit 



70, rt. 17 f 
en4 Patent, 



latent, 186(5, H, JIM. 

ff, 6 0o. V* <s, 8> & 
87 Goo. IK, ci. 148, . I f 
mul with no, 40 (l<^ III e, 
7, B. 5, LiaierM 1'atunfe, 3862, 
HP 18, and Loiters Vatu&l f 



Mwani 



W. N. 270, at p. 
/* uny 
with 3 
p, t 7. 



APPLICATION OF HINDTT 



Court o! 
Bombay, 



The High Court of Bombay 
in the exercise of its ordinary 
original civil jurisdiction. 



5, 6 Goo. V. c. 5, s. 112, 
37 Goo. III. c. 142, s. 13, 
road -with 4 Goo. IV. o, 71; 
s. O, 1 Lottora Patent, 1862, 
s. 18, and Loiters* Patent, 
1865, s. 10. 



There is in the above enactments no express reference to qucHticms 
of marriage, caste, or rcligioxiR usages and institutions, but the Supremo 
Courts and High Courts have always dealt with mioh questions according 
to the personal law of the individuals concerned. 2 

The Prosidc-noy Small Causo CourtB have to determine all 
quoHliottrt according to tho law adminirtlowl by the High Courln 
In the exercise of their ordinary original civil jurisdiction/* 



;, Agra, Bengal (outside Calcutta),! 
tho Province of Agra and I 
Ansam, and tho Province of 
Bihar and OriKna. 4 

Tho CourtH of iho Madras ' 
Presidency (outsido tho town 
of Madras), oxcopt thn tracts 



Act XII. of 1887, 8. 87, 
amended by Act XVI. 



f 



Pro- 
viuciul Court B, 



i.ion of tlw ufi(*ntft for Oanjaui 
and Vizagapatam. 



ActllL of 1H73, *> t(l 



Bombay Et^gulation IV* of 
1827, s. 20. 



Punjab, 



r ro . J.TIO Bombay XVmdoncy 
' (outnido tho Inland of Jftoxn- 
bay). 

The loHt-mcniionod ftcction i OB followH: **Tho law <o ho oli 
in the trial o nuitH nhU bo Actn ot l*adiutnent, an<l R<^ulation of 
<irovcrnmont applicable to iho <'ae; in iho alw^noe of Much AO(H and 
Regulation^ tho uwagft of the country in which tlw Htiit aronn; if 
uoh appear, the law of the defendant ; and in the Abonc*< of 
law, and uwagfl, Juntioe, equity t and good conftcfrncw Abn*-/' 

Act IV. of 1872, . 5, an 
Punjab. | amended by Act XII* of 



1 Bee Mathvra Naikin v. 
MiflWn (lW) t 4 Bom, 545, at p. 05ft, 

8 Hrtffc In w Kah&n&tt 
f I8J), 5 Bom. 154, at pp. 
170* 



* Aot XV. 0*188*. ft. 1ft 

4 A to Bihar and Crinta, MOD Acti 
VI r. of 1912, 

* AK to l^lhl, MM Afc XII!, c*l 

M, 3. 



CASTE, RELIGIOUS USAGES. 5 

This enactment dcscriboH the topics of Hindu law to be dealt with 
by the Courts as "succession, special property of females, betrothal, 
marriage, divorce, dower, adoption, guardianship, 1 minority, 2 bastardy, 
family relations, willn, legacies, gifts, partitions, or any religious usag<% 
or institution," but in all these cases gives preference to a valid custom, 
which is not contrary to equity and good conscience. Although this 
description in more detailed than is to be found in the other enactment s 
the other (Jourtw in practice apply Hindu law to all tlieuc cased when the 
status, act, or right of a Hindu in in question. 

Oucih. Act XYI1L of 1870, u. 3. 

This section contains provisions similar to those in force in tho Punjab. 
The Central Province**. Act XX, of 1875, & 5. 

In this enactment the topic** of Hindu and Mahomedan law art* dv* 
scribed in the name way a for the Punjab, except that u divorce " in not 
included. In tho few Hindu COHOH in which the question of divorce 
the question would probably be held to be included in the 
Vt marriage." 

Burma, except Ihu fclhau Stains* Act XIIL of IftUH, rf, 13, Burma. 
BritiHh BolueliiHtttn.~JKi. II L of 1 800, H. BO, 
Ajmoro and Menvara. liog. IIL of 1877, H -JU AJWW 

Tho wording oJt this ootion correp0ud# with tht*t of Act IV. of 1872, 



Questions of caste, id* questions relating to matters which 
tho Internal autonomy of a canto or ittf Hodal rtilatioiiH, 5 
and (|ujHtion of religious u&tgus and institntioiiH can only 
bn dutemiinod by UK* Civil Oourk whon* Ihrir <1< 'termination 
IB nooeHsaty fot* tiu purpono of deciding a suit ** of u civil nuluri*.* 1 

A wiit in which tho rightw to pro|>crty or to tun offiots in coutvMttl iw a 
flttit of n civil nature, notwitliBtanding that HUO)I right way <lfK*wl entirely 
on tha decision of quastionH tut to nligiouH ritCK or oercfiKHiicn,* 5 

In a Bengal <'ano 7 tho following haa bHm Bald on this wubjeot : " It may 
that Hiutn in which the prmoijjal quowtion robt^H to the 



^ A<it VUL of 1BOO, 0- 17. ** Civil Proofedtim Ocxlo,*' witf 

Kxxidiit in qtwtioni* o! marriago, " Civil Procoduni CooV* 

ivotoc, ami adaption^ th ivgo //><* v. Nubbamyadit (!HfK)) 

of majority hw* ktcn fixed by Act IX. 5JOII ; JKrintuuuwmi v. VirwtM 

of 187^ (1#S), 10 Mad. 133; Kttekn&mmi 



4 Above, (1900), 30 Mad. 158$ Lofantah Miw* 

* Ap/nya v. Pada^ta {1898), i23 v* /AworwlA^ ^fcwri ( Wff), 10 a W, N. 

, at jn KK) j Awtndmn Uhl* 505* Sco tiafat/Q$Kt <lhwiw v, to//* 

^ v. Mrtwbr /^f 6'Ar^ ^o (1907), U L A. 03 ; 30 Mad l5 j 

), 7 Bom. i, at pp, ^ 320, U U W. N. 0&B j Wow. U H. W, 

* 4a^V,oflflO f *,0; Act XIV, of * (fawrmfil Jtobi v. Vhairmm o/ 
tS^^IL.^th^ett^ctolkotodia Pum'Aa^ Munic^liit/ (HWU), 14 
tho no to to (Ml section lit O^in^ly^ U W. N. 1057, ut i^. 



f CASTE, RELIGIOUS USAGES. 

performance of religious rites or ceremonies are not suits of a Civil nature, 
and to the same category belong suits for vindication of a mere dignity 
attached to an office. 1 But it is well settled that suitB in which the principal 
question relates to the right to an office, are suitn of a Civil nature, and 
not the less so, because the right claimed may depend upon the decision 
of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies or even religious tenets. 58 
Now suits for oltiees of a religious character, that is, those in which the 
title to the* office is dependent upon the performance of religious rites and 
ceremonies, may be divided into two classes, namely, fir#f, religious 
offices to which fees are appurtenant as of right, and secondly, religious 
offices to which no fees are attached, but which entitle the holder thereof 
to receive such gratuities as may be paid to him. In the former class 
of cases, that if, in respect of offices to which fees arc attached, there is no 
doubt that a suit will lie* for a declaration that the oiTice is vested in the 
plaintiff. 11 AH regards religious offices of the second class, there has been 
Home divergence of judicial opinion upon the question, whether a suit will 
Ho fcr an office to which no fees are attached. In " Bengal " the view 
has boen maintained that a suit by a person claiming to be entitled to a 
jreligiom office of thin description against an usurper for declaration of 
WH right to the oificc is a suit of a Civil nature maintainable in a Civil 
(Jwirt,* The contrary view has apparently been maintained w Macltm* 
In Bombay, a dint faction has been made between an office which iHattiushcd 
to a particular temple or place, and an ofUoa which is entirely jerHonal 
in character, AH regards the former claw it han boon hold that the suit* 
IK maintainable, AH regard** the latter, the balance of authority spjK>rtH 
the view that the suit Ls not maintainable, 7 though the contrary view 
was main! ained in M/ f yw/ Ihwhim v. llnwitt, A7w. B Thin distinct km bfttvwa 
local and perHona! oiH<jrH haw U!H<> boeii recognised in Allahabad." 8 
For hint aucst', a mil HOH * 

(a) to clottirmtiu* a right to givo offering at a tempi** ; l 

(b) to restrain tha removal of an object of worohlp; u 

* Heo flunkur Bfarti timmi (Sri) v, CL W, N. 7& 

ftidha LiMfftty** <>hamnti (Itf4tt) 3 * Thofapinla v. ftfttato (Ittffi), JO 

2WL I. A. 108 j W. H, i>, (X 30 j a a Mad. (Ui j HMamya v. Vtdnnto* 

on vpmand (1845), ^ Bom, 473; thnrfaf (HK)I) SJ Mad. 9. 

u (AYw/Mtt) v. Krwtntt Tata* * Limha \\ Hamn (JHH8), 10 Bom* 

(IHO), 1 Mad, ft. (J. 301 ; MH; Uurmnyttt/tt v. Ttmttmt (iH$U) 

Vitkr Ptirab v. Kritfimji l^Boni. 2K1. Tim right itf hert'ditary 

(IHH5), 10 lioni. iJJJJt ; &V pri^ni to a family WON uplu'iU in 

ftt/j/m (hundan v, Kuttntt/ttti/ttn ( 1K8,'{) (Sht'lMml v, HMI/QWM (HH i) *10 Horn. 

"7 Maa* ti ; (fa&ig<>ytt v. ittMtya ( I S)IO), 01 ; h't Bonh IA It. 1171. 

S^Bom.455; 12 Bom. U It. 30H. * 4/wrw" v* *SVw (IHH2) f (I limn. 

8 Krithmnut dfatritir (Tim) v, 72/J; Mtdfyfyu v, /ftwfj/ (IJMO), 3* 

XrbAfutMWMi Tatn Cfatrfar (HHO), Jtom. 4A5; J Jiom. ii. K. 3JUH 

<i I. A, 120? a MiuL 02; S,(J, on ( I8HH), 13 ftiio. 4^ 

r^ntftml Kri#hnu#{uni v, Rrihnamn 9 (Jhuntm tHtt Vyaa v* 

C//rw (1882),, 5 Mml 3I. JV^i*t (IOIO/, 32 All. 5 

v. "tamru ( UX)7), SSft AIL 

Bom. H. U Apj IH. lp Vnigtiwuthti v, 

Miwi 



17 OiOc. 900 1 Mftwiaa v. JFWj> NiA&k (IWl), 7 Calo, 707 j C. U It, 



CASTE QUESTIONS. 



(c) la restrain the removal of religious* marks in a temple, or unjustifiable 

changes in the character of a temple ns a religious in.st i tut ion ; * 

(d) to assert an exclusive- right to worship in a temple ; - 

(?) to assert a right of aocoHH to the inner shrine of a temple j 3 

(/) to assert a right to officiate exclusively aff a prieat on the occoHion 
of the cremation of all dead bodies brought to a particular place ; 4 

(g) to assert the right to administer religious rite* to pilgrims. 3 

(h) to assert a right to foes on marriages ; * 

(i) to assort a right to certain honours an high prifwt of a temple ; 7 

(j) to assert a right to a certain office in a templr ; ft 

(/j) to assert a right to enter a prayer hail belonging to a certain religious 
fraternity ; * 

(1) to recover vowels borrowed by another divMon of the caste. w 

The Court cannot determine oasto disputes, when* no right of property c wto 
i involved. 11 It will not interfere whon &n individual haa been excluded quwtiom. 
from caste, or has boon excommunicated or otherwino deprived of religioun 
rights by an authority in that behalf, ixnlosH the exclusion i.s contrary to 
natural justice, a, for instance, whero he ha been cmulcnuuKi without 
having an opportunity of being heard. 1 ' 4 The l<w of a were Hoewl right 
does not justify the interfcroiwio of the* (hurt. 1 -* 

Tho principle was laid down by ( '/ww/tfrw/'Av/r, t/. an follows in Nttthto 
Vflji v. KMttawji (1001), 20 Bom, 174 ; :$ Bom. L, H. 7lH, m followH : - 

u A Huit ramiug a caste quoHlion inut fall In one erf Ihnio claHrfew ; 

*' I. It may boa suit brought by a member of a canto complaining of hm 
exclusion from it ami asking for a deckration that the ox {minion i illegal, 
and that ho in Btill a member of the caste, and a Huoh ontitlod to 
privilogoH. The Civil Courtn have no jurisdiction to ontortam nuoh 

(t IL It may bo a suit, brought by a member of a caste oxpollod from it, 
for a declaration that the excommunication l illegal and that 
to certain rightx o property or ofHco art a memltcr of the citRto* Tlie ( 



j/j/anyttr v, Ruwtt* 
>), 30 MatU 



(IHih'J), 21 (Juh\ KKi, 
ltt 1'wyji Knlutt \\ 



a Anfindrtw llhikaji PhtMe v, 
tifanhur iHji Vkttryti (iH;j), 7 Horn, 
3&t ; Krishmmmi v. Kr Mint ma 



8 VtHJktttofhafapttli v. MMnrttyudu 
(IKHO), i;}Mad.2iKf. 

* (founwniYtOhaiman&fJPattikrtti 
Jf tmtrtwUty( 1010), HO.W.H. 1057, 
B^e ff'm Pdmdfl^ v, 

(1010), i Pfctflfc U T. #8 

a hftimxawmy Afyan 
Aehart (1U63), J> M. I, A. 3*K ; S 
W. It* P. 0. 21* 

(Jur*a*gayti v. 7Vm/*a (1801), 
10 Bom. 281. 

* Arfibtbtm MniWM Mfatuttiilu v, 

M AnrtMn (,tort* (IBM), 4 
d. K. 0. 34tf. 

v, TinmnutuU (!), 



u JrthnM fttirnfif v, 
fWrr;7 (ISWft), 3i 'Bom. 407 j II 
Horn. b. H. 1014, 

H /i;^*// v. 
ti& Bom- 122 j Jtwhawfat v. 
(/M) (iWK)), 24 Bom, HI 



), 1 7 Mad, M; 
v. M<tdtt*wfamn (I8RO) t 
405; Kri*hiM*tmi VhtUi v* 
rw <18B), 10 Mad ISflb 
** Jfaykuiutth IfawM&r v. Jawrd* 
(1801), If? Bom. 



V* AMI DM* fa 



10 lk>m. <HH ; Kanjt ^mbf v* /tr^Vra 
* (13), 3H Bom- lift? Jtaf* 
i/r v, Hndhamm (IH^>) f 
Jton. T* B (A, 0.) 01 ; Ji W Ii a H 
^^7 ; Jf?j fffcto 3f^ v. 
( HM4), 1 W, H. 0. 351, 



CONTUAUTS. 



Courts have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, if the result of the excom- 
munication is to deprive a man of his civil rights ; but even here the juris- 
diction is limited ; all that the Court can inquire into is whether the order 
of excommunication was passed londfide in accordance with natural justice. 
The inquiry is to be conducted from the point of view of the caste and not 
of the Court into the reasonableness of the rule for a breach of which the 
order of excommunication was passed. If these conditions are fulfilled, 
the Court must hold that the caste acted within its powers as a domestic 
tribunal with whose discretion it will not interfere. 

" III. It may be a suit brought by an expelled member for damages 
on account of loss of caste or character. The Civil Courts have jurisdiction 
in such a suit ; but the jurisdiction is subject to the law that a libel to a 
man's position in his caste can give thorn no right to claim damages from 
any of his caste-fellows if they have acted bond fide for the protection of 
their caste interests in the discharge of their caste duty.'* 

In the Bombay Presidency (outside the island of Bombay), the Court a 
are prohibited from deciding casto questions, except in a suit instituted 
for the recovery of damages on account of an alleged injury to the caste 
and character of the plaintiff, arising from some illegal act or unjustifiable 
conduct of the other party. 1 The principle is, would the taking cognizance 
of the matter in dispute be an interference with the autonomy, i.e. the 
internal management, of the caste 2 s 

contracts and The High Courts of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, in the 

dealings. exercise of their ordinary original civil jurisdiction, are also 

required to administer the Hindu law in all matters of contract 

and dealing between Hindus, except where such matters have 

been the subject of legislative enactment, 

So far as it goes, the Indian Contract Act a has superseded the Hindu 
law of contracts ; * but it may sometime! be necessaity to refer to Hindu 
law as to matters of contract or dealing, For instance, the Hindu law 
of gifts is to some extent still applied to gifts by Hindus, 8 and the law of 
damdwpat, by which no greater arre&r of interest can be recovered at any 
one time than what will amount to the principal sum, is applied in some 
oases. 6 Although the law of damdupat only applies to contracts, and not 

1 Bom. Keg, II. of 1827, s. 21. e It applies to Calcutta and Bom- 
Bee IfirdlMr v. Kalya (1S80), 5 Bom, bay, Nobin Chunder Banerjee v. Ro* 
Sfc ; M&wfaand V. 8av<uchand (1860), mesh Ghunder Cfhose (1887), 14 Calc, 
Bom. 84, note ; Pragji Kalan v. 781 ; Mamconnoy Auifacarry v. Jokwr 
Qovind Gopal (1887), 11 Bom. 534. LaU &vti (1880), 5 Calc, 867 ; 7 
, * JtfwfoH:v,^6a(I882),6Bom.725, 0. L, Bu 204? Q&nput Pvndwanp v. 
aft ' p T 727 ; Anandrav Bhikaji PhadJce Adwji Dadakbai (1877), 3 Bou 81& ; 
^j*OAarya(l883),7Bom. Nwewwcwjee v, ifctowm (UM>&), 80 
. 328, 329. Bom, 402 ; 8 Bom. I* B. 82 ; Si* 
1872. wanbqi tf. Manordas .JMmon&a* 
Cfwnder Poramanick v. (1910), $5 $rm, 199 j 12 Bom. L. Ik 
wf (p4), 14 B, L, B, 992. It a^pHos to oases outside the 
76; 22^/R^d;^;3;^ island of) Bombay, SundarcMai v* 
6 Post, Ch^^V^,! %at>cw$ tyikctfi Nadgowdct (1899), 




WHEN LAW APPLICABLE, 



to judgment debts, 1 that law may be applied in cases where t lie Judge has a 
discretion as to the rate of interenf. 2 

It has been held in Calcutta 3 that the law of dnwluixtt applies to 
mortgages, but a different view has been accepted in Madras. 4 

In some other inatterw, such aw maintenance, 5 the Courts may admin Wrr 
Hindu law between Hindua tu* matters of equity and good coitacfrwe. 

In gome of the enactments above referred to tho Courts un i wh 
required to administer tho Hindu law only in eatfi'rf where the, ^ 
defendant in a Hindu, 6 and in sumo of them in euse?* ^here tlu* 
parties are Hindus, In either case tho question as to wh<'thor 
the Hindu law in to be applied depend** rather upon whrtlwr 
the person whoHe iuheritanee> Buceession, <te-, is in dhpttti* was 
a Hindu, or tho persons, whose dealing m in qiwntion, wcro 
HinduH, rather than upon the accident of the arrangement of 
the parties in the litigation. 7 



Hindu 



I) 



As to tho application of tht'ir fttmmul law to Hindus, apart f 
* enactment* BOO In n JRahtiwdiw Narmwlav (I #80), /> Born. 
at pp. 160, 107, 170. 



24 Bom. 114; 1 Bom. L, K. f>51 j 
$toJ v. Jlapu Sakuram (18U9), 24 
Bom. 305 ; 2 Bom. L. K 18 j Dugdwa 
Mfawkda* v. ttamhandra (1895), ^10 
Bom, Oil; tfanMft Dharnidhar Ma 
(Shri) v. Kcftfutvrav (Jomnd 

w (1H1X)), 15 Bom. <>25 ; 
jftttbaji v. //ri (farind 

15 Bom. 84; >IW .S f f//i^ v. 

(1805), Ut Horn, 85 j //rf 
Mahadaji Nittttirfar v. BaltmbM 
Ibtghumth Khtw (IH84), Ji Bom. &W ; 
tfamyan v, #/if<ijt' (IH7JJ), 9 Boitt. 
11. 0. 83* It dot^H not apply to thtf 
Bi<ngal Prt'widency outniclo ('aloutta, 
Ihtnaruin Btngh v. ^aw /)<;* ^>w^ 
(IBHa), 9 Oale. 871 ; 12 0, U R. f>9() ; 
^ttrj^a tfarain tiingb v, ttirdbary Lall 
(IS83), CA!O. 825 ; 12 a L, B, 400 ; 
J*raft JKritikw Tewary v, /<&% ]V/A 
ffWtMM^ (1898), SJ 0. W, N. K)J* # It in 
not In foro in Madrafl, K. Antutji I fait 
v. Awcfai U71) Mad. 1C, <X 4<K). 
1 Wanda Lai faty v, IMinndra Nath 
Gbakrtwtrti (1913), 40 Cfefa 711; 
/n Ite matfcr / //wf /xitf 
Cla 1280. Hi 



40 L A. 08 ; 37 Bom, 20 ; ] 7 U W. N, 
T73; 15 Bom, L. E. 4&J; Act XI V* 
of 18855 (Civil PtiMftdunt), M. 809; 
Act V, of 1008 (Civil 
8. 34. 

3 fc}t'(^ Mi'i'Mtknt 
^h>ir (1012), JJ7 Mud, :ti 
/// Itttiwji v, MitfMtHtlitt MH (llilf>) f 
42 ( '*lc. K2; SO C 1 . W. N, 1 10. 

* MadttttwafltdftftntttO fifth i tti A r V2Ai 
v VfHfaittwitntMJulH 
2t| Mad. (U^. 



)r^7 Mad* 3HMI 
law to IKJ aclinlrufl^rrd hi 
High Coartu In the ftxftfdto i>f thrtf 
ordinary original oivil jurimi{itloit f 
, pp. # 4. 



following mim^ Aziwunni#.w 
v. /;/ (IH71), Hatl. Ff. CX 455, At 
pp. 474, 475; All Nahtb v. NhttoJ 
Bom. 85; iMkthwundft* 
v, />ewrt^ (IKHO), J*>m. 
pp, 1B,% IHt; *SV^KfW v. 



(1894), $1 Cab. H41. 



7W, at pp. HU5, Utf ; 8 if* 1* it, 70, 



(Mjfm<iar) 



10 SOURCES. 

BouitcBS OF HINDU LAW. 

In tho first stage of Hindu law, as writing was unknown, 
dependence had to bo placed upon memory. Tho original 
sources were the Sruti (things heard) and tho flmriti (things 
remembered). The former were said to bo tho actual uttering?? 
of the Creator. Tho latter, although of divine origin, wore 
couched in tho language of the ri^iis or sages of antiquity. 

The Sruti wore in words which would bo recited and Hung, 
They eyinjinVed (ho four Yedafl, tho six Veclangas, or appendages 
to tlu Vedus, and Iho Upanishads. There are, a fow passages 
in <he Vedas which incidentally allude to a rule of a lav, or 
which gave an instance from which a rule of law may be. inferred. 

The Hmritw are the principal sources of lawyers' law, but 
they contain much which has nothing to do with law, Tho 
earlier Hmrilw were mere manuals for tho use of students. 1 

In the second stage of Hindu law tho authorities were in 
writing. They consisted of the ('odes or Hantra* or Nniritiit 
which were based upon older timritix and on what are culled 
#//m'. Of these such as related to DlittrtMi, or law or duty, 
only concern iw. Mven thn Wuirnw >SWm,s" coniaiu much 
conincf ed with religious rites, expiation, and HO forth. 



Of the tiutm* (lit. Hiring^) tfaotto rolatod to pmctioal 
Dfatrmd ttnlrafl, tho principal of which arc thone Uy CbuUmiW whos*o <lat5 
i not earlier than IJ(K) M.C., of Itaudhayfttia, of Apoiaiulxi f of VHMtta ami 
of Vishnu. 

Although in theory Hindu law fo nltimatctly l)aed upon tho 
Vftdait, which are staid to have boon of divine origin, in mattm 
of law tho T'Vrfa/* nre c^f no greater authority than the tfmriti* 
(Uun^rf h(*ard I>y the r/.s*//^*, or Ha^es of antiquity), or codoyt of 
revealed law* For all practical purponen jt is unnecjeHHary to 
tract* tlu law earlier thau tho Dharma Nttstmx, 

In rnodoni practice tho J)hamw tiattra* ara of lew authority 
than the Commeuturio** and JHgoHtn, which aro baaed upon th(mi, 
and tho viewH oxprosflod in tho Comnrientaricw and P5g<$tn In 
tbok placo give way to tho deeimonn of Iho Judicial Committtw 
of tho Privy Council and of Iho High Courts of British India* 



** Law of 
L 9 p, 4, 



CODES. 1 1 

With regard to I ho interpretation of ancient te\t-bouk,s ou Hindu law Tntorpwtation 
the Judicial Committee flay this, 1 " Thry now add that Ihe further study of < 
of the subject necessary for tho- decision of those appeals has still moro 
improsBcd them with the necessity of great caution in interpret ing^hooka 
of mixed religion, morality and law, lest foreign lawyers, aecuBtomed to 
treat as law what they find in authoritative books and to administer a 
fixed legal system, nhould too hastily take for trict law precept H which 
are meant to appeal to the moral Henne, and should thus fetter individual 
judgments in private affaire, should introduce rot fictions into Hindu 
society, and im|>art <o it an inflexible rigidity never contemplated by th< 
original law giu'i-H." 

!Tho principal Codts or Sanfiitas constituting th<? Dlwrma The 
Sastras 2 are 

1. Tho Codo of Institutes of Manu? 



This is undoubtedly the most important of the 
authornhij) is unknown, and then* JH great uncertainty u.s to its a<#\ It. 
waH translated }>y Sir William rjomw, who cnnHirhwd it was written in 
the thirteenth century n.r. Modern invost Ration han placed it much lati*r 

TrofoHHor Macdont'H 4 mmHidcr-H that it. Vk probably oHmimwl its ]tn*H<*ni 
flhapo not much latter than 200 A.T>/' Dr. JfiUhlc'r A oonwiclerri "that tin* 
work, Biioh an wo know it, oxiHtcd in the ncwoml e(*ntnry A.T>/* l*rwf<if>r 
Jolly romarkn that the code cannot well be placed later than the waoml to 
third eontuty AJ>, Profotwor Max Miillor held ? that it oannot IK? 
than 400 A.D., but thift view lim boon met by J>r, Btihlor.** 

2. Tho Code or Institute** of 

This coda i second in im|K>stance to that of Manx. It wti apparently 
written in one of the early conturieH of the Chmtian era. The MittiMmm * 
JH a commentary upon thin code. 

S. Tho Codo or Institutes of Nartulit. 

Tho tranwlator (3)r* Jolly) of thin o<le fixes itfi earliest |>o*4jbl^ date 
at alK>tit 400 or IKH) A.D. 




v. of tho 

(Sri IMwu) ; lta Jtiihtrr. 

W 

I A, H*, at p. 136 ; S> Mad 1C>8, at p. 

pp. 415, 416 \ 121 All 400, at j>p, 47H f " Kaonnl Bookn <> thn 

470 j 3 U W. N. 427, ftt p, 442; vo). xxv. j 

1 Bom, I* R. 22; Mwant tiingh of fmiia *' ( UK)H) IL 2MJ. 

(/to) v. Kfakori (Ritni) (180H), 25 u Rwht umi Wtto 1 * (Kmyti!o- 

J, A, f4 ; 20 AU. 27 ; 2 (\ W. N, iJ7;i pwclia <*f Imlo-Aryan Kuwawh), p. Ul 

* WorkH of authority* For a Imt 7 ** India, What <mn it IViurh UH V '* 
of all tlio Hanhitan (nolhn-tionH or pp. 91, m 

Institute^)* wo HiroAr'H **VyavAj*tha **Hcrd Book* of Uio 

Darpaim/* pn<f(tats and BhfttfcAcha* vol* scxv. p. 117, In 15 (J, W, N, 

H* 1 * ** Kittdu Uw* y 2nd <(L f i, 2^ Mr. Kahi Pttuwl 

* For an account of Marm'w (Jotlo date at about 15<) 
^othointroda<?tioixto a SivcredBooka 



DIGESTS. 



Commentaries 
and Digests. 



TYiwipu! 
whuoltf of 
Kim lu law. 



After the tiustras the next step in the development of Hindu 
law consisted in the composition of a number of CommentaricB 
and Digests based upon the Hwslras. 

The authority of the several commentators necessarily 
varied in different districts, and thus arose the schools of law, 
which are operative in different parts of India. 1 

The differences between Iheso schools* art* said to hu\e risen 
it) tho main from the different views expressed by iho com- 
jnentators who were of authority in the districts which "wev* 
governed by the schools respectively* Difference of the ciisiom 
of districts may also have helped to differential e ihts school* 
both directly and indirectly by Inlluonem^ the opinions of the 
commentators, 

The two principal schools 2 o Hindu law are 

1, Tho Miiakfihara 3 school, which prevail* throughout 
India, except where tho Bengal school provailn. 

Thin IM tho older and mow orthodox nyaloia of Hindu law* It in iv Hid 
of i ho patriarchal HyHtom. 

2, The JJonKal or Duyu-hhaga 4 school, whih prevails when* 
the Bengal language IH spoken by the mlutbii.uulH ol the country. 1 ^ 



ThiH Hrhool was founds! by Jiinuhivaiwuia* and Kd^huimndana 7 in 
the /iftH'nih ccuttiry, K IIUH hwn c<mm<i(T<'<! by anwn writnw to <ww 
ii origin to Brahuihiieal authority, hut *fr, 8, ?. Mitm. uttribuH'M th0 
piiouliariti^H of thin wahcx^I to the* oammmtbl a<*tivity of fcte 
and to thoir antagonlwrn to BmhttufcniNin.* Tho former vkw I* 



of Mudum v, 

too JitwrnUnytt NttthitjtaMy {1WW) f 
JS2 M. I. A. r ;i7, at p. *|;I5; I J*. JA 
K. K a l,at p. II ; 10 W, R. 

17 t at p. JM ; (i. 1). ButwrjiM % H 
of Murrlap;*'/' ?ir<l cil. f p /S, Or, 
Bhnttaciiarya ( u Iliii- 



i*H " Law of InlM*ri 
"Ml 
8 So 



i^ Jy 



that tho Cummi'ntarit'H and 
j worn thrf otttftonw of ft < 
to rt'Cotuiil^ Uu> Sniritirt nt tho 

ttHct'iidancy. &(* ulno H ('. AHtra in 
**Law Quarterly lU-vww,*' vol. xxi. 
p* 30 xxSi. p. W). 

* Thin ixpn*HMicm haw IHH I W ohji't<'d 
to, but it WUH dt*ft'nd'd ! 



p. 10 

wf authority throughout Twiirt, i'xn|it 
wlii'n* Mijicm'tifd by otlwr work?* in 
B<*n;mi and UV^tcni India* 
4 tiomctimt'H called thn 



tlw* 



That in, thr 



* of 



iiuntwttn, untl 



Hyliwt and < 'ftchar, An U> Atwwi> 
JtoW Xkbfa v, C^fwCo /M (I7I), 
10 W, K, (^ II. 4*2, 
* JPW, p, 14* 



7 ; Efl,}kumar 



xxi- |, 



vol. Juu, p, 



6CHQOXi8. 



13 



by tho religious ohciractor of the system ol Inheritance (potf, ohap, xii.). 
The latter view is supported by the freedom of alienation allowed by the 
Bengal school. 

The Mitakshara school is subdivided into four minor schools, SuMivwic n o 

Mitiikffhnru 

VIZ. Pchool. 

1. Tho Bonaros school. 

This school prevails in Behar, in tho district of Benares, and in Central 
and North-western India, and in the whole of Northern India, 1 escort 
that in the Punjab it is connidcrably modified hy eiwlomary law, 

2, The Dravida or Dravira school 

This school prevails in the Madras Presidency, ,, in tho southern 
portion of tho poninwula* It was founded in tho thirteenth oontuty hy 
JDevananda Bhatta, 8 

Mr. Morloy 5 says that the Dravida school "may 1m milrdividwl infnSu!i{iviMi<m<>{ 
throo districts in each of which Borne particular law trnvtivs him* mw l^vida 
woight than othorH ; ihoH<s clMrictH arc: J>ravi<in, properly cO callwl,*'" Aw ' 
Karn&taka., 5 an<l Andhra," 

8. The Maltaraflhlra school. 

Thin school prevails whore thoMaralha language m wpken an n vcTnacukr 
and In Guzorat and Kanara. 



( tntrcKiuotiun* p. oxo*), to bo gowrned 
by this school. In a note to jftfrfatt* 
pfrfti MUM ft v* floogundtt (ffarw?) 
(1801), 1 Btm. fitl. R. 57, afc p. 3 t 
note (2ml cd., 49, at p. 51, no(< i ), Mr. 
Maona^hlcn Htatr*H thai ** UK* aui-hori- 
tit'H followed in OriHHo- nn tlui Hamo 
with thoHo oC .Bonsai " j hut <h 
opinionH of tho, ptnuHtH in thin cat* 
wore not founded on Itangal authori- 
lion, and an Mr. Maytto points out 
(Hth <ul, p, 11, noto), in another 
( )risa oaao rnontioned in Macnaghten's 
" Hindu Law/ 1 iL m\ t tho opinion 
of tho pundits wan founded on the 
MitakfcHara, In tiaghunadfo (8H) v. 
Bww XMwv (Sri) (1876), 3 1. A. 
154 ; 1 Had. 69 ; 25 W, B, 0. B. m\, 
which wa a oaes from Ctanjam^ whi<>h 
wan moluded in tlif awhmt Hiudti 
kingdom of Omna, tho law of thn 
Dravida twhool wa appluul apparently 
without quautionu Mr, Mayno 
('Hiwiu Lw, M 8th d. t p. 11) 
suggoets that tho Court applied the 
of law with which it waft 
In Kaghttbanund ttew 
4 OaK 



law was applied to a caw ro 
Him alwi AV//M l*wfifo BttttJprjrG v. 
6'/bAuf* ^Arn^iA (1874), 22 W, II, 
0. K. 214; Jttgfndm n/tupiti ftvrri 
f'hitiulitn MttfittiHttrtt (ttfijft) v* AV/f/r^. 
wwrf Mtwtiwjk (IHtK)), 1*7 i, A. liiH; 
l8<'aU-. 151. In 7 > ///7w/// Kitmttri IMti 
(Mrimttti Kitni) v. Jny*t*ti* Chnntfor 
Dhnbnl (IJMMJ),at !, A. Hi! ; 29 (JMa. 
432 ; n ('. W. N. 400 ; 4 Bom. I/. H. 
8<M5, thw <lftciHiou of tho < !tirfc in India 
nhowcui that Ori^vta wti Kowm^d by 
tlw Mitakrtham, but Um qm^ttoii 
wa not dcoklad hy tho Judiaml 
Committee. 
p. 



(IHttfi), 12 M. I, A* 397, at p, 
4M; 1 H. L. H. P. <!. J, at r. 10; 
10W. R. I*, a I7 f at^a 



p. ext'.i. 

4 WIw>w* thn Tamil language i^ 
H poke, a, 

* Whom tho Kanar^W) langitaxn fa 
spoken. 

* Whuro the T^lr*p;a lan^ua^ h 
spokon. BtJ Wttrnttttmiwtl v, Htibtr& 
iwhnrlu (IftOJi), 1 M H. (5, 420, fcfe 
p. 4315, 



14 SCHOOLS, 

4. The Miihila school, 

This school prevails in what was in ancient times the Province of Uithila* 
or Tirhoot, 1 and in the adjoining districts. It was founded by Chttudenh- 
war, 1314 A.D., and Vachaspati Misra, wlio flourished in the fifteenth 
century. 2 

Punjab school. NoBtri Golap Oiundar jforkar 3 added to this enumeration a Hehool which 
ho called the Punjab school. This school not recognized by other text 
writera, and !H not referred to in the authorities by that name* There 
may be many differences between the Hindu law a administered in th<* 
Punjab and that which in administered in the other provinces, but nuoh 
differences arino from the existence of local ciwtomH, ui>on which tho 
law Is there based, 4 and do not, as in the COHG of the other schools, 5 ari 
from dJHVjvntTN of opinion as to the- true construct ion of texts, 

Tho geographical Ihmtrt of tlusso schools cannot be accurately 
(Maori, 6 Whore thuro in a diuputo as to which nchool provailn 
in a particular locality tho question must bo determined upon 
evidence. 

Tho redistribution of district** or other arbitrary division** of land by 
the Government does not render tho inhabitants of tho locality dealt with 
liable to be subject to a different school of law. 7 

j'Htammmi f .Pho following iii'o tho principal works of authority in tho 

wnrku of -t > t to,. 

authority, UoJUgal Bohool : * 



Nothing wlain w#m* to h<^ known of tho author* According to Mr* 
arid to Dr. Jogondrarwth Jihattacharya ho pmbably livt-tl in 



1 "TIw district of Tirhoofc, wliicli (lH7f>) r Ml W. R. C1. H. ^7^ Thin 

IN a cormption of th HariHkrit name drciniou waH aftt*r rcmaucl by tlw 

TMkhtoklit JH, a tho namo im|>Jii*H, JuriiciaHVjiMniitt^^hiAV/wNwwrff^n/s 

bounded on tlmo Hi<l< by thn-n (Muttwimnl) v. Mrt/iw Hingh (IH7iJ), 

riwrw, nanu'ly, by tho ({umiak on in \V* H, ('. K. HO. Thi judgment 

t\w w Ht t th(^ Ki on <ho taMf, and <f fht* Ju<UmI (Niniiiuffff* w'fiuM to 

th* (lun^cH on the nnuth. (<. f. >sliow that (,hi i burden ww upon tho 

Httrkur^H u Lnw tf Adoption," p. 4 W* ptTx<m uwMTtin^ tho n'ffition <f th< 

H*H> maji of ftncionfc Mithih Arint'Yf'd law ori^iiuttly uppilrablo to tho fim- 

to I** C Tagon* % H trannlatJon of th trict., but fhU vunv of th* juilKmoni 

Vlvada Ohintamniii. w& not UKgofct(l in tho 

* Jihattachttryu'H ** ICimlu Law,'* of tho IJigli (Juurt on remand, 
2ml od. p. 10, wart it rt'^rrod to wiwn th cas 

1 "Hindu Uw," Hrd e<L, p. #{). apfniti txjfow tho Judbml 

**Uw of Adoption/' pp. ^H, 5454. (Nk*> titKHdtir 

* fekw Tti|ix*r f " Punjab duutcHnary 4 J, A. 147), 

X4W," vol. Si. ||iu B^ -80. ^kw Mitral ** JUw of Joint 

* 4^ p. 19. ProiKirfcy;* p. IS ; 

* te M0rl*y% " DigwiV* Introduo- ** Hittda Uw," 
ti/m T pp. 4xacxii,^xML Lit, s 

' fritfot 8in$b T* 



AUTHORITIES, BENGAL* 15 

Bengal in tho fifteenth century, 1 Saatri Ciolap Chandra Sarkar, 2 considers 
that Jinuitavahana flourished in tho last quarter of the eleventh, and the 
Jirnt quarter of the twelfth century A,!*. He identifies him as the minister 
of ViHwakncna, a king of Bengal The work was translated by Mr. H. T 
l.'olchrooke, It is the highest authority in Bengal, 3 

2, kimriti of lUighunandana. 

Thi author i Haul to he of the highest authority in Bengal except in 
mat tow of inheritance.* The portion of the, work relating to inheritance 
(Dayatattvta) in general Htrictly follows the Daya-bhaga. llaghtmandana 
ftcwniH to have flourinhed in the latter half of the fifteenth century or 
beginning of the gixlecnth century. 5 

8. Dayakmrtiu, Bangralut, by Bri Krishna l r arkalankar, 

This i a treatise on tho law of inheritance, following tho Daya-bhaga, 
and apfwirontly written early in the eighteenth century* It was translated 
by Mr, P. M. Wyneh in 1818, 

4. Hrikr'uthna^ Commentary. A commentary on the Daya- 
bhagu, by tho Iiint-uamed writer. 

5, Dattaka Chandrika* A irouliHo on tho law of adoption* 

The translator (Mr. Huthorland) aacribed the authorship of this work 
to J)vananda Bhatta, tho author of tho ** Bmriti Chandrika," a but it is 
now taken to be the work of & Bengal Pundit, 7 It haa been suggested 
that thi work was forged for the purpose of a particular suit, 8 but the 
Judicial Committee has treated the "Dafctaka Ohandrik**" m of groats 
authority in question** of adoption in Bengal* ~"~^s^ 

1 8<*tt Bhai ta<*harya'H ** Hindu Dr. .lolly in " I )io Adoption iu ImUea," 

, n 2nl <^i,, pp. ;i:$ IJ5 f and jm- Wun&burg, 1010. 
to (;olhr(wk'8 tranniation of * Muvflttwi v. Atclmna (1817), 4 

aa. n M. I A, 1, at p. 57 ; 7 W. & R C. 

** Hindu Law,** 3rdocLpp, Si7 28. 57, at p. 59 ; (faUwtor of Madura v. 

* Bhattaflhiiryfc'fl ** Hindu Uw," Moottoo Xtanwtinga Sctthupathy (I88} f 
toi fd f p, 37. 12 M. L A. 397, at p. 437 ; 1 B. < 7 

* Bfe^U<vl^ryft' '* Hindu Uw/ f B. F. 0. 1, ftl p, 13 ; JO W. a #- O/ 
8n<i oil, p* 38* Tho portion ol lik 17, 

work tolbg with tobor|tww (Dny^ 
him tom imiAtKl by a (1 



(IS09), 26 1 A. 113, at pp. 131 132 j 
Mrauft ** Vyavathifc Bar- 2Si Mad, 398, at p, 411,; 21 Ait 
, xvt note*. 4<JO, at pp. m, 466; Sfe <X\^ 3JI; 

. #20 j 



, p. 17. 427, at p, 489 ; 1 Bom, 

* Mttym4* " Hindu Law,** 8th o& Bhaywan Singh v. SA 

, 31, 92 ; V. N, Maadlik, Introd., (180), 20 L A. 153, at p; 101 ; 21 

J Bbattoohtiyar'* "Hiadu Law," All 412, at p. 419 j 3 0. W. N. 454, 

d <L, p* ^ ? T0Hy' ** JU^tUHS% 1? at J>, 457 ; 1 Bo% L. K, 311 ; fi.a iu 

!,!$! <^w /8fdto* V. JWfeAwj Court Wow (1895), 17 All. 21)4; 

All *W* *t W* * JVartldto JRfcwcwndfM v, /kiAoo 

(1015), 4 t A, 56 j 40 



16 MITAKSHABA SCHOOL 

The Mitakshara is also of high authority in Bengal in 
matters where it docs not conflict with the above-named 
works, 1 

In tho Mitalvsliara school the guiding authority 3 is tho 
work from which tho namo of tho school has boon taken, v\%. 
tho Mitakshara, which is a commentary on Yajnamlkyap by 
A 7 ijnaneshwara Jogi. 

The author is said to have lived at the end of the eleventh century, 
b * Vijnanehwara'fl views and opinions are eminently practical. Tho 
high authority which his work enjoy** almost throughout India S dtio 
partly to that rea>n and partly alno to the fact that ho was the councillor 
of the wont powerful Hindu king of his time." * Ho lived ai Kalyaiia 
(probably tho modern Kalym in the Nr/am\s dominions)* whieh wan f hn 
capit al of Vikramaditya VL, or Vikramanka, King of lh C 'Iwlnkya kingdom 
o! tho Docoan from 1070 for about half a century.* 



r l r ho flchooln, which arc aubdivimons of tho 
Hchool, giro preference to certain treating and commentaries 
which control and explain pafwagoH of tho MitakHhura. Thiw 
urine tho cliff* 'renew l>ot\wn thorn* 



Where there in no eonKensuK of opinion among the omnt*nUtoni or 
pKlabliNbe<l uwage, tlu k dootriiU'H of the MitakMlmra prevail, 7 



77i( folf(nvij)^ an* fho principal \vorkn of authority hi thww 

oolK :%-- 

In tho BonaroH school 

1, Vira 



Thi work was written by Mitnt Mlnra, who probably lived in the 



Bhatiaclmrya'H Hindu Law,* 1 Btottwhttyrt ^Hinck 

p, IJ4, /Mwywindwn Itoottey 2ml ed, p, 31. 
Jttw (WW), U M. I. A. 487, V. A. Hmith*i ** Burty Hktory i 

at ). 507 ; W. E, P. C. 23, at p. 20 ; India," 3rd e<t, p, 433. 
AfafyayGhandra Bhutttwharya v. //on" * j&kugmndtwn ttwhty f. 

/H enMwnJ (190a), 35 Gate, 721, at jftw (1867), ii tf. T, A, 47 

r, 727 ; 12 a W, N. 51 1, at p, 07, UOS 5 W. K. E (1 23, at p, 
515. * Soo jR0jftf (Vrmaj/ v, 

* JttyaMnth Prumd f/i/jrfrt v. /fuwjA ^mrnnl (1DO), 2i Mad #8R 
^*yA (IH07), 25 Calo, 804, at p. 3<W, * 8arkar' ** Hindu Uw, 11 r*l 
Qdfator tf Madura v. ,4/oc^o Itama* \y. 2B, 20. Mttra'H " Law of 
1^ SffOatjMthy (1868), 1*J M. I. A, 1'roporty, 1 ' p. L 

W**e fc49f j 1 B. L, B. F. a 1. at * too Introduction to d. ( 

p. II j 10 W* a P. U 17, at p. 21. translation, pp, ml, xiv, Bhatta* 

JCridknqji Vyw&twh v. Pmdunwg eliarya'n "Hindu Law,** 2r4 tut, 

( 1 875), 12 Bom* H* 0*05* p. . 

* .XnfM*. 11. 



SEN ARES SCHOOli. 17 

sixteenth century, for the purpose of refuting the arguments of Jimuta 
Vahana x and the oilier writers of the Bengal school. 2 

The Vira Mitrodaya is of very high authority in the Benares school, 3 
but cannot be followed where it conflicts with a clear statement in the 
Milafaihara.* 

2, Nirnaya Sindhu. 

This work was written by Kamalakara, and was completed in 1612 A.D. 
8. Dattaka Mimansa. 

This is a treatise on adoption by Nanda Paudita, who lived at Benares 
in the seventeenth century. It has been translated by Mr. Sutherland. 
The authority of this work has been emphasized by the Judicial Committee 
on more than one occasion, 5 but caution is to be applied in accepting the 
glosses of Nanda Pandita, whore they deviate from or add to the 



In the Dravida school. 7 

1- Smriti Chanilrika, by Dovananda Bluttta. Hchooi ' 

The author lived in Southern India about the thirteenth century. 8 
The authority of thi work is, in the absence of usage to the contrary, sub- 
ordinate to that of the MitokfiJtara. 9 Its authority is said to be second 
only to that of the Mitakslkam^ It has been translated by T, 
KriBfcnasawmy Iyer. 

2. Parasara Madhavya. 

This is a commentary on the Para#ara Smriti by Manhava> who was 
Prime Minister of Bufcka, the third King of "Vijayanagara, whose reign 

* Ante, pp. 14, 15. (1015), 42 I. A. 155; 37 AH. 350; 
R. 0. HirciMf's " Vyavaslha Chan- 10 0. W. N. 8U ; 17 Bom. L. R t 549, 

drika," vol. i., Introduction, p. 17, referring to Oiirulingasmmi ($n 

and note. lialusu) v. Kamnlakahinammti (Sri 

8 Collector of Madura v. Moattotf Balusu) ; Itadliamohun v. Uardai Bili 

famaKfifftt Sathupatty (1808), 12 (1 899), 20 L A. 113; 22 Mad, 398 ; 21 

M. I, A. 397, at p. 438 ; 1 B, L. H. All. 400; 3 0, W.N.427; 1 Bom. L. R, 

P, 0. 1, afc p. 14 ; 10 W. B. P, 0- 17, 220 ; Mtagmn Singh v, ftlwgwm 

at p. 22 i Uridfari Lull May v. (The Singh (1898), 20 L A. 103 i 21 All 

Bengal OommmeM (1888), 12 M. L A* 412 ,* 3 0. W. N* 4?4 ; I Bom* 3U & 

44$, at p. 400 j 1 B, I*, B* P. 0. 44, 311; 

nt p. $& j 10 W f B. F, 0. 32 t bt * See Cofteetor of Madura r. 

p, 84^ 3MM Mym^v, Mehan Lai Mootloo RamtUnga Sattw<p(tthi/ (18CB), 

<18S0), n Ail. m, at pp. 340-342 ; 12 M. L A. 307, at p. 437; 1 B. L. B, 

Ma$inffhv,8arafrazunwar (1896), P. 0. 3, at p. 13 ; 10 W* B, P* tt 17, 

10 AIL 2 15, at p. 231. at p. 22. 

* Jagannath Pmsad Onpla v. Mun* 8 Jolly's ** Leoturos," 20, 21* 

fit Bingh (1897), 25 Calo. 354, at pp. * Majv Gramany v. Ammnni A mmal 
Ml, 368* (1906), 29 Mad, 358 ; Midfappwfayan 

* Caso^ a^ t p. 15, note 9. Sa v, Ammawi Ammal (1897), 21 Mad 

Mm v, &thari Lai (1S89), 12 58 ; Svfatfm v. Luictwiana Xrfdi 
kt pp* 341, 342 ; Qan&a (1897J^ JW, 100. 

/ ^4 (1886), 9 AH *,8ijran^$ "Manual, 1 ' 2nd ed, 
> 323, >' ; ,1', < , PP- 3, 4. Bhattacharya's ''Hindu 
\ Uwj' 2nd ed, p, 32. 



18 



BEAVIDA SCHOOL, 



Muhaittnhlra 
flcbool. 



commenced about 1361. It is said to be " in high esteem in BenareB and 
in the Southern and Western schools." * 

8. Sarasvati Vilasa* 

This work was written by Pratapa Rudra Beva, a King of Orinwa* 
early in the sixteenth century. It has been translated by Mr. Foulkes, 

4. Vyavaliara Nirnaya, 

This was written by Varadaraja about the end of the wxteenth century. 
It has been translated by Dr. Burnell, 

5. Dattaka ChandrikaJ 

The application of this work to Southern India is said to have been 
due to a mistake made by the translator in attributing the authornhip 
to the author of the Smriti (Jhantlrifat ; 4 but as it has bwn treated by 
the Judicial Committee as an authority in Southern India, * the effect 
of this mistake, if it be one, cannot be altered. 

The Judicial Committee haa atao affirmed the Vim Milro* 
daya to bo a work of authority in Houthorn India, 7 but It i# 
submitted that that work is only of secondary authority cine- 
whore than m BenaroB. 8 

In the Maharanhtra school, 

1, Vyavaham Mayukha. 

Thin wan composed by Nilkaniha Bhatta about the beginning of th0 
seventeenth century. It i of paramount authority in Uujarat,* In tha 
Northern Konkan, 10 and in the Mand of Bombay, 11 and apparently if* 



* Bhattacharya's "Hindu 

2nd cd., p, 31. The portion relating to 
inheritance (Daya-vObhaga) ha boon 
trannlatcd by Dr. Burncll. 

* Lit. : the recreations of 8ara$wti 9 
the goddess of learning. AH to the* 
authority of tlnn work, soo " Nt^lKon'B 

of Hindu Law," pp, Ili2, IKJ. 

Ant?, p. !<> 

Sec Jolly's " J^HsturoB/' p. 23. 

jHco oatjoe anlz, ]). 15, note !>. 

A>ntv, pp, 10, 17* 

Monirttm Kolita v. Kerry KoUtotny 
(1880), 7 I. A, 115, at p. 1/53; 5 
Caic, 770, at pp. 7H8, 7Hi) ; 0, L, R, 
2*2, ftt p* ^32, mfurring to (JrMwi 
Lall Hoy v. The, Itcngttl (hmrnm&nt t 
13 M, I, A. 448, at p* 4(W ; J ft. L. 
R. K 0. U, at p, m j 10 W. R. P. (JL 
32, at p, 34 f which in^r<;ly HtaUjw that 
the work in quoBtiou k of high 
authority hi Beimrog, 
8 



9 See West and Buhkr'fl ^ 
T^w,'* 2nd od,, p. 3, this applios to 
the Kamathin, settled in Bombay; 
Jagannath Itaghunath v. Narayan 
(1910), 34 Bom. 553 ; 12! Bom. L. R* 
545. Tho llazur Court of BarwU 
ha& held that the Mitaktjhara i para* 
mount in (u!fitrat ; w^ Acharya'w 
<{ Codification in Britinh India,** pp. 
345 el wv/, 

10 HaklMmm Ntttlttttkiv Adhikttri v. 
Nltofai (1870), 3 Btinu 353, at pp. 
305 c-t wq. AH to th( limits of tho 
Northern and Southern Kcmkan, w^o 
Narfutr v, B^u (101(1), 40 Born, G21 ; 
18 Bom* L, B, 744 

u Vandmwn Jekfaan (Paid) v, 
MawOttl ChunM (Patel) (1890), 15 
Jiom. 505, at p. 574 $ Lallubhai tiapu* 
Mm v, J^a^wmrftai (1S70), 2 B>m 
3SS, at p. 418 $ Krixhnaji VyanktwK 
v. Pan&uraim (1875), 1^ Bom. H 4 
05* Boo Vijiaranyam v* Lakthuman 



MAUAllAbllTRA SCHOOL. 



39 



Shulh. 1 In the Hahratta country, and in the Southern Koukau and 
Northern Oanara, its authority is inferior only to that of the Mitakakara** 
Throughout Western India it is of high authority, 3 and its aid will be in- 
voked where the Mitaksham is silent or obscure.* It has been translated 
by Mr. Borradaile, and again by Mr, V. N. Mandlik. 

" Questions on the Hindu law of inheritance to property in the island 
o Bombay are to be determined in accordance with the Mitakshara, 
subject to the doctrine to be found in the Mayukha, where the latter 
diftcrH from it. But as laid down by Telang, J., in Qojdbai v. Shrimanl 
tfhafatjiwo Haloji Jtaje Witwh ; 6 * Our general principle should be to 
construe (he Mitakshara and the Mayukha so as to harmonize with one 
another wherever and so far as that is reasonably possible * " 6 



2, Nirnaya 

8. Dattaka Mimansa.* 

4. Swnskara Kaustaba. 

ThiH work is by Anantndeva. It w said to belong to the same period 
m OKI Ninutytt Ninflku. 

in i he introduction to Wwt and UrihWft " Hindu Law " I0 it is stated 
that the Vinimitiwltwi u an<l the JDatttdn (Vrnmtrika 12 are also authorities 
in Wwtern India, Tho latter in an authority in Western India on the 
mthjeot of adoption, 13 but the former is, it is submitted, rather a Benares 
than a Bombay authority. 14 



( 1 87 1 ), 8 Bom. H. (5. 0, (X 244. This 
applif'H to KamathiH scttlod in Bom- 
bay, Jayarwath ttaghunath v, Numyan 
(H)K, 34 Bom, 553; 12 Bom. L. E. 
M& 
1 ft' 15 Bom, I* It. Journal, |>. 40. 

* Itttikrinhnn /fo/JMJ* Ajfta v. Lk*h* 
wttn Mnhtr (1H!M)) ( 14 Horn. 05; 
Jnnkilm v, Nundrtt (lK>} W Bom. 
tilii ; Krwbwtji VyaMwh v, IVr/wto- 
rw*v(IH75)12B(mi. H. (Ul.l 

* Ynndrtmm Jekinan (l^tt^l) v. 



10 



Bom. ftlitf, at p. 574, 

* tthngwui Vithtibtt v 
(|(K)H) 3* B<W. 300, at p* 
U |t # MMH 

IK at p. na 

v J/umraj Mo- 
I. A, 170, at p. 187 ; 
30 Horn. 431, at p, 442 s 10 (, W, N. 
, at p. B07 ; lihngmn VUluibti v 
(HK>8), :*2 Bom. 300, at p, 
10 Bom, U It, 380. 
* 



(1870), 7 Bom. H. a A. 0. 158, at 
p, 166; Awufatf v. Bak, (1860), 7 
Bom. H* 0. App., i, at pp. x., acil, 
Pranjeevanda* Toofatydaa v, DewcoQ* 
mlmn (1859), 1 Bom. H. C, 130, at 
p. 131* 

ft VM'Clor of Madura v. Moottoo 
tinmftlinga Hathuptthy (1808), 12 
M. L A. 07, at p, 438 ; 1 B. I* K. 
1>. <!. 1, at p, 14 ; 10 W* E, P, a 17, 
at p. 22* 

2nd od,, p. 1. 

Xn^ v pp. 16, 17. 

** Xtf^ p, 15, 

J W&m&n Ma0hupait$ Bern f, 
XrUfafi JKwhiwj Jfot^ (1889), 14 
Bom. 240, afc p. 260, 

14 Dhondu (Jura* v. 
(1870), 3 Bom. 309; 




lAtyrihjMtt *;. f 

' ""* ' ' ' iyjfeliifc' dMWrtWwJwW 

'V.VvV/'i 1 / 1 "L 1 ; 



(1868), 13 M. I A, 397, at p. 
_, 1 B< L. B* P. 0. 1, at p. 14; 
)0 W, B, P, 0, 17, at p. 22 ; Qridhari 
JM M$tt v. ^*^ J5e^<Z Government 
^ I A, 44S, at p, 40 ; 

^^v^'R - 44 afc P- fia ? 10 

.'3^' t, 0. 32 t at p. 34; K. K* 
'Law of the $<M 



20 MITHILA SCHOOL. 

Mithila In the Mithila school. 

1. Vivada Cliintamani 

This work was written by Vachaspati Mfcra, who flourished in Tirhoot 
in the beginning of the fifteenth century. It is the work of highest authority 
in this school. It has been translated by Prosono Coomar Tagoru. 

Tho VyawJiara Chintamatii and tho Ihcalla Niruuytt, both 
by tho author of tho Vicada Chintawuni, are also authorities 
in tho Mithila country. 
; Hutnultaru* 



This Is an older compilation, but of lews authority than the ViraAt 
WitttlfMttatti* Tho writer ww (<hamlwant Thukkura, Prime MiniMtar 
of Hara Sinha l>ovu-, King of Mithila, lie iloumhcd at ih* wid <f tho 
thirtemth or beginning of the fourteenth century. Thi.s work ha recent ly 
been tranlated by U, (,'. Surkar arid J>igaaivar Chatterjee 



55, T>attaka 

Hudhwiwka, by Jtudradhara, Dwaita Pari#hi$ta 9 l>y KfHhuv 
Misra, 2 aud VitKiiln Chandra^ by Lachwudovi, 3 an also autho* 
riticH iu thin HchooL 

Tho Bengal and tho Mitalwham Hynteiiw differ in two main 
particulars/ 1 VIH 

1. AH to ilw* j)(*r,sons who arc wjpaiT^nw^, and t!u*ir rightH, 
a Huch, in property li<id iu cimr<j(aury, j>. HJ) a joint Hindu 
family* 



the Mitataham 0yfcem right* in family p#0fmrty ^ro 
t>y birth and bpne by death* 5 Individual rights ^ro not gmemlly 
nissedi Tho family is tho unit und females havo getiemlly Jio right of 
SMQCdBwon, the male members having right** of fturvivonihip* Iu Bengal, 
rights in joint property are required by inheritance or will Jn ooiutequeuoo 
of thin difference, tho law a to the power to alienate an undivided 
differs urid< k r the two Hy 



2, AH to mhmLuum*, 

Tho Miiakflmtm ytom prcfcsrs agnates to oo#nalts generally* Tho 
Bengal school found** right** of inlioritancMt ujwn ihft prinoiplo of tho amount 
of rdigioiiB cjOEloacy which the pernon claiming can givtj by an offering to the 
manes of the, pcrHon> \vhoo property in in dwputo,, or of hit* anootttor* 

* ^w/<*, p, 17, UdfaJor of Madura Colobrookfl** ** Dl^wt/' Introduo- 
V, Mwltvo Rwwlinga Nittlttijtuthf/ tioa, p. xijc. j m>o MwkhtpvMy Mt 
(1868), 12 M. I. A. tW7, at p. 497; J/irt v, ttqj under Nwifa Mm (1W). 
1 B. L E* F. 01 J, at p. 13 ; 10 W. a M. I, A, 138, at p, 147. 

* fetoo Mayn' ** Hindu Law," 8th 
* Hindu Law," eel, p, 40. 

* Pwt t pp, 2^5, 23(l/ 237. 



ACTS, 21 

The subdivisions of tlio Mitabdiara, school differ between 
themselves, and from the Bengal school, as to the right o a 
widow to adopt a son to her deceased husband, 1 and in certain 
othor matters connected with adoption. They also differ in 
tfomo questions of inheritance. 

Tho Maharashtra school differs from all other schools IE 
conferring rights of inheritance upon certain fexnalo relations, 
and in giving greater powers to female owners. 

Tho decisions of English Courts of law have played a con- Decisions of 
Biddable part in ascertaining, developing, and sometimes j n CourtfiofLaw * 
cryHtallisdng Hindu law, r fho Courts in India necessarily 
follow without question tho decisions of the Judicial Com- 
mittee of tho Privy Council, and of the High Courts 2 to which 
thoy are subordinate. Now that tho volume o! reported 
dKnnions upon questions of Hindu law has become so large, 
judicial decisions, in most cases, provide an answer to tho 
f|u<8lionH which arwo. 

The High Court of Patna follows the decisions of tho Bengal High Court 
ewwspt whom thoy have been differed from by a Full Bench of the former 
Court. 8 

By tho following enactments tho Legislature has made i^egiautiv ' 
nomo alteration** in those portion of tho Hindu law which the 
Courts aro required to adminiator : 

!. Act XXI. of 1850 (tfroodoro of Religion). 

2. Act XV* of 1B5(> (Hindu widows remarriage). 

3. Act XXL of iBOfi (Native convorlrt Marriage Dissolution). 
i Act VI I (Bom. 0,) of 1806 (Hindu'* liuMity for ancestor's 

dobtn). 

5, Act XXL of 1870 (Hindu wills). 

0, Act IX* of 1872 (Contract*),* 

7. Act IX. of 1875 (Majority), , 
, a Aefc; IV, of 1882 (Urwstap of 'Property). ' 

9. Aofc TIL (6. 0.) of 1904 (Settled Estates Act). 
10, Act II. (U, P. 0,) of 1900 (Qudh Settled Etetlried let). 
1 1 1 Act L (Mad. 0.) of 1 014 (Hindu Tran^fer^andBeqtiests Act). 
19, Act XV* of 1916 (Hindu PiBpoflition of Property). 



4 _ T ^ r 

* ftM i~i**J$tt litf vi. PtarW* ITitw^f * JforlAar ""JfifiMer v. Mahomri 

iKtfmwtt) (101% 42 I. 1. 1^5, at (%&$ (1916), 20 C. W. N. 083. 

tiMfffi, W'^Ul , ^ W ? , W ' , 4 * ^ PP- B, 9, 



22 HINDUS, 

To WHOM HINDU LAW is APPLICABLE, 
TO what The expression " Hindus/' in the enactments above reform! 

; includes not only persons who profess what is called tho 
Hindu ro ii g j onj i } )U t also such of their descendants as have not 
openly abjured that religion. 2 

"In doubtful cases conformity to tho manners and obHorvancca of 
the Hindus is a safe guide for concluding that a particular family is to 
be governed by tho Hindu law.'* a 

" Hinduism is only recognised by the community to whom it is applied 
as denoting a distinction between them and the foreigner. Tho word wa 
first used by the Muslim invaders for all Indian creeds in which the uncom- 
promising Unitarianism of the followers of the Prophet detected mgns ol 
the worship of idols." In its conventional ense it means " tho collection 
of rites, worships, belief*, traditions and mythologies that arc sanctioned 
by the sacred books and ordinances of tho Brahmins, and arc propagated by 
Brahmanic teaching." * 

In dealing with the expression " Hindu " in the Indian Sucoeakm Act 
(X. of 1865), & 531, Dr. Whitley Stokes, in his edition of that Act, at p. 
200, says, "But tho term 'Hindu' would not, apparently, include tho 
Bdbd Ulia who adore but one God, dispensing with all fornw of worohip, 
and directing their devotions by ruleH and objects derived from a nwcll<y of 
V&lanta and 8&fi tenets (H. H, Wilson's Work* I -W) ; tho l>rin ' 
or Dkdmu in Biindelkhand who consent to the real identity of the 
of the Hindu and Mahomedan crc<><l (7/n>/,, 533) ; theflwMw (Pu 
a sect of. Hindu Unitarians who arc found chiefly in * I! H ' P f' aH ' <' 
Doab from Farukhabad to beyond Delhi (/Wrf,, 35&) ; th<^ <jim Nwtyrt 
who simply prefer tho worahip of ono <lf>d, and admit pro^lyt alik<< 
from HMttg and Mahomedan(ft, 36S); tho 
are atheistical (/Wd S5i))." 



Hindus are divided into tho following four main divwioiirt, 
or, as they are usually called, " cafltos " fl : 

1. Tho Brahmins, or priotly canto. 

2. Tho Kfihatriyan, or warrior 



i Soo Dagm v. Pttfalti MM Jnn nlmoHfc oni|M* <HH|ifarJwiw of 

(1806), 19 Bom, 1$&, at p, 788. KMltntriyn* ^mi Vaisyiw, w Hnrk-r* 

Bancrjeo' "Law of Marriag^; 1 "Hindu Law, 1 ' 3rd vtl, p. *M Tho 

3rd od. ? [>. 10. claim* of U*o AV*^w*/w* to IK K*Mri* 

* Bhattaoharya'n " Law of tho y^ i* ndvoofttowi by (} (X Hidkftf, 

Joint Family/' p. 5(), *' Uw of Adoption,*' Sittl *'il^ pp. 

Bain' "*' Ethnography ," ottmg 41^, 4iCaf J bufc uh dalm 

Lyall's" Asiatic Studiow^' nogativod in A BflHtf*l 

, * Thi word in <l?rivod frorrt tho ^A r;/wwrA J^m*^ v, 



Bee 

^<Aw6 JP*rAula< ^w (187), U^ v, JltoMuww /^i^l^W)* *0 (Mo* 
7 M. L A. 1^ at t p t 40; 4 W. E. l. (J88). 
a 12, at pp 1*4 im Aft to the* 



LOSS OP CASTE. 23 

3. The Vaisyas, or agricultural caste. 

4. The Su&ras. ' 

When caste first originated in the Epic Age, the pure Hindus were 
members of the first three of these divisions, and the members of those 
divisions are now styled regenerate, or twice-born, having regard to the 
ceremonies of initiation which are peculiar to them. Each of these castes 
is now divided into a number of sub-castes. In the case of the Sudras 
nearly every occupation has its caste. 

In the Bengal Census report for 1901, Mr. Gait says (at p. 354), " A caste 
is an endogamous group in a collection of endogamous groups, bearing a 
common name, the members of which by reason of similarity of traditional 
occupation and reputed origin are generally regarded ... as forming a single 
homogeneous community, the constituent parts of which are more nearly 
related to each other than they are to any other section of the society." 

In the absence of a special custom; Hindu law is applied Jain s and 
to Jains, 1 to Sikhs, 2 and to Nambudri Brahmins. 3 Slkhs ' 

Degradation from caste, 4 or a departure from orthodoxy LOSS of caste, 
in the matter of diet or ceremonial observance, 5 does not 
prevent the application of Hindu law. 

Except so far as the Hindu law may be inconsistent with change of 
the new religion (if any) adopted by persons who have renounced re 1SI n * 
the Hindu religion, 6 such law continues generally applicable to 
such persons and to their descendants, if they do not elect to 
abandon their subjection to Hindu law. 7 

1 Sheo Singh Rat v, Dakko (Mussu- coomar Bebee (1815), 2 Morley's 

mut) (1878), 5 I. A. 87 ; 1 All. 688 ; " Digest," 4=3 ; Sir Edward Hyde 

S. 0. in court below (1874), 6 N. W. P. East's evidence before a committee of 

382 ; Chotay Lall v, Chunno Loll the House of Lords* referred to in 

(1878), 6 I. A. 15; 4 Calc. 744; Lopes v. Lopes (1868), 5 Bom. H. C. 

3 C. L. B. 465 ; Ambdbai v. Govind 0. C. 172, at p. 185. 

(1898), 23 Bom. 257; Amava v. 3 Vtohnu Nambudri v. Akkamma 

Mahadgauda (1896), 22 Bom. 416, at (1910), 34 Mad. 496. 

p. 418 ; EuKhab v. Chunilal Avribushet * Act XXI. of 1850. 

(1891), 16 Bom. 347 ; Mdhabeer 5 Shag wan Kuar (Ram) v. Jogen* 

Pershad (Lalla) v. Kundun goowar dra Chandra Bose (J903), 30 I A. 

(Mussamwt) (1867), 8 W. B. C. R. 249, at p. 257; 31 Calo. 11, at p. 33 ; 

Jl ; Bhagvandati Tejmal v. Rajmal 7 0. W. N. 895, at p. 903 ; 5 Bom. 

(1875k 10 3om. H. 0. 241, at p. 258 ; L. R. 845. 

Bachebi v. Makhan Lai (1880), 3 * As, for instance, persons con- 
All. 55. verted to Christianity cannot retain 

a Ehagwan Koer (Ram) v. Jogendra the practice of polygamy, post, p. 36. 

Chandra Base (1903), 30 I. A, 249, In re MiUard (1887), 10 Mad. 218; 

at p,,254 ; 31 Calc. 11, at pp. 30, 31 ; Lopez v. Lopez (1885), 12 Calc. 706, 

7 C. W. N. 895, at p. 901 ; 5 Bom. at p. 722 ; Emperor v. Lazar (1907), 

L. K. 845 ; Kissen Chunder Shaw 30 Mad. 550. 

(Doe dem) v. Baidam Beebee (1815), 7 Abraham v. Abraham (1863), 9 

2 Malay's Digest," 220. See 1 M, L A. 199, at pp. 240-242 ; I W. 

" Digest," p. clxxvii. ; J^Jtggo R. P. C. 1, at pp. 5, 6 (a case of con- 

MMcfc (Doe dem) y. 8mm- version to Christianity); Ponnwami 



OF 



A& to the dfoet ol the conversion of a coparcener, see #03*, p. 350. 

But except 00 proof o! a woll-estabKshed custom, 1 and then 
ott jy ^^ regard to succession and inheritance, 2 converts to 
the Mahometan religion, which in itself regulates the devolution 
of property, are bound by the Mahomedan law. 3 

Such custom haft been fully established in the case of the Khoja 
Mahometans, 4 the Cutchi Memons,* the Stmi Borah Mahomedan com- 
munity of the Dhandhuka Taluka in Gujerat, 6 and the Molesalem 



v Doraxatni At/yin (1880), 2 
Mad. 20ft (ditto); Bhagwnn Ko?r 
(Bam] v. Jvgcndra Chandra Base 
(1003), 30 L A. 249, at pp. 250, 257 ; 
31 Cole. ll f afc p. 33; 7 C. W. N. 
895, at p. 003 ; 5 Bom. L, R. 854 (a 
case of an alleged Brahmo) ; Kwum 
Kumari Moy v. Satyanmfan Das (1903), 
30 Cole. 909 ; 7 C. W. N. 784 (a case 
o a Brahmo). In Franri* Gfhwal v, 
<7&ri 4?Jtafa? (190ft), 31 Bom. 25, 
differing from Tetffr v, SManha ( 1S86), 
10 Mad. 60, it was held that coparce- 
nership can be- a part of the law 
governing the rights of a Christian 
family, conw rted from Hinduism. In 
aj Bahadur v. JBishtn ftniial (1882), 
4 All, 343, at p. 347, it is said, "A 
Hindu or Mohammedan who becomes 
9k convert to some othr faith, is not 
to#rired i|Wd /oeto ol his rights to 
property foy ii^soritance or otherwise. 
JPHtwl fiiete he loaes the benefits of 
the kw of the religion he ha? aban- 
doned, and acquires a now legal status 
according to the creed he has em- 
braced, if m*eh creed involves with it 
tegal responsibilities and obligations." 
1 Pose, pp, 27-32. 

* Khoja and Memon** case (1847), 
Perry ' 0* C. 111. This only applies 
t0 separate andseJf-acquircd property ; 
/* Ma\omed t. DM Jaffar (1013), 
38 Bom. 449; 15 Bont, L, B, 1044. 

* Abrattan v. Abraham (1803), 
M* I. A. 109, at p. 242 ; 1 W. R. P. 

. I. at p. 5 ; Mahomed Sidick v. Han 
(1886), 10 Bom. 1, at pp. 9, 
Atf Bahadur v. JBESoi ^ya? 
4 All 343, at p. 347 ; Sajan 
K Moop Ram (1867), 2 Agra, 
y Mmx^ -^ v. JBT^r -Dtt^ 
KJmn (I860), A|gp% F B. 39 (edition 
1874, p. n) j JKttAUaf 



(Bai) (1911), 35 Bom, 564. 
See Jowafa Bufah v. Dkarum Singh 
(1866), 10 At I. A. 511, at pp. S37, 
538; Hakim Khan v. #<xtf Khan 
(1882), 8 Calc. S26 ; 10 0. Iu E. 003, 
doubting jKwjp Chand Chowdhry v. 
iafw Gh&wdbry (1878), 3 C. L, E. 97. 
As to caste customs, see Jtna (Bat) 
v* JC&mw J*jwj (1907), 31 Bom* 360. 
When the Hindu law of inheritance 
applies, converts to Islam take with 
all the liabilities annexed to the estate, 
such as the payment of maintenance 
and debts ; RasJiid KarmaU v. Sher- 
banae (1904), 29 Bom, 85; 6 Bom. 
L. R. 874. 

* See AAmedbhoy Hubibbhoy v. Cas- 
tumblioy AhmMhoy (1889), 13 Bom. 
534, and cases there cited. Khojas 
are governed by the Maynkha (afe, 
pp. 18, 19) with regard to inheritance 
and smoxseasion; JB&$fttf KvnnaK y, 
SheffaM* (1904), 2^ Bom. 85; 
Bom. L. E. 874. 

* Mahomed Sidick v. Haji Ahmed 
(1S85) } 10 Bom. 1, and cases there 
cited ; Saboo Biditk (J&aji) v. AUy 
Mahomed Jan Mahomed (1904), 30 
Bom. 270; 6 Bom. L. E. 1135; 
M<ma Haji Joonas Noorani v. Abditl 
ItaUm (Haji] (1905), 30 Bom. 197 ; 
7 Bom. L, E. 447 ; S. C. in Court 
below, Abdul (Haji) v. Samid (Haji) 
(1903), 5 Bom. L. E. 1010. This 
would also apparently apply to the 
Nassapooria JR&mons, see Abdur 
Mahim tv ffdhu&ai (I^iS), 43 I A. 
35 ; 20 a W. K. 3^ ; 1$ Bonv Ii. E, 
635; and to the Bantwa Memons> 
8a/wm Urn* v. Emm (1916), 26 
Kathiawar L. E. 174. 

Baiji (Bai) v. Santok (Bat) (1894), 
20 Bom. 53. 



NATIVE CHRISTIANS, 25 

Girasias. 1 It has been held 2 that the Hindu law of joint family property 
has no application to Cutchi Memons, For similar reasons it would not 
apply in the case of any Mahoinedans. It has been held that the Lubbais, 
Tamil speaking converts to Islam in the district of Coimbatore, follow 
the rule of Hindu law, excluding females from inheritance. 3 As to Memons 
who have migrated to Africa, see Abdur Eahim v. Hahmabai (1915), 48 1. A, 
35 ; 20 0. W. N. 362 ; 18 Bom. L. R. 635. 

The Indian Succession Act 4 has brought under its provisions Native 
all native Christians, whether they have or have not elected to ns ians 
remain subject to the Hindu law. 5 In marriage and divorce 
also they cease by conversion to be governed by Hindu law. 

Tho illegitimate children of Hindu parents are within the illegitimate 
expression " Hindus." ciuidren. 

It has been held that the illegitimate children of a Hindu mother by 
a European father are to be treated as Hindus, if they have been brought 
up as such, 7 but there is authority that where tho mother is a non-Hindu 
the children cannot be treated as Hindus, even though the father is a Hindu. 8 
In one case, however, the son of a Mahomedan concubine was brought up 
as a Hindu and treated as such by his father, and his father's family* 9 

The mere circumstance that a man calls himself a Hindu is Profession of 
not sufficient to entitle him to the application of Hindu law, 1 ** m ulsm ' 
but in some cases, where the parties have followed the rules of 
Hindu law, that law may be applied as a rule of equity and good 
conscience. 11 

Conversion to Hinduism is said to be common in Northern and Southern 
India. 12 Although the process of conversion may not be marked by any 

1 Fatesangji Jasvatsangji (Mafia- 7 Myna Boyee v. Ootaram (1861), 8 
rana Shri) v. Harisangji Fatesangji M. I. A. 400 j 2 W. E. P. C. 4 ; S. C. 
(Kuvar) (1894), 20 Bom. 181 ; Moosa on remand (1864), 2 Mad. H. C. 196. 
Haji Joonas Noorani v. Abdul Eahim See Tar a Chand v. Reel Earn (1866), 
(Haji) (1905), 30 Bom. 197 ; 7 Bom. 3 Mad. H. C. 50, at p. 53. 

Ii. R. 447. " 8 Lingappa Goundan v. JSsudasan 

2 MangaUas v. Abdul Itazalc (1914), (1903), 27 Mad. 13. In that case tho 
16 Bom. I/. R. 224 ; Advocate-General child was brought up as a Ohriatian. 
v. Jimbabai (1915), 41 Bom. 181- 17 9 Sher Bahadur (JBhwy) *, Oanga 
Bom. L R. 799. Baksh Singh (Bhaiya) (1913), 41 1 A. 

3 TbraUm Mowtfor (Sheik) v. Mu- 1 ; 36 All. 101 ; 18 C. W. N. 401 ; 16 
hamod Ibrahim Rowther (1915), 39 Bom. L. R. 306. 

Mad. 664. 10 Eaj Bahadur v. Bishw Dayal 

4 Act X. of 1865, s. 331. (1882), 4 All. 343, at p. 348. 

B Dagree v. Pacotti San Jao (1895), u Ibid. See also Abraham v. Abra- 

19 Bom. 783 ; Ponnusami Nadan v. ham (1863), 9 M. I. A. 199, at p. 243 ; 

Dorasami Ayyan (1880), 2 Mad. 209 ; 1 W. R. P. 0. 1, at p. 6. See Muthu- 

Joseph Vathiar of Ncfcareth (1872), 7 sami Mud&liar v. Masilamani (1909), 

Mad. H. C. 121 ; Nepenbala Deli v. Siti- 33 Mad. 342. 
TptinM Banerjee (1910), 15 d W. N. 158. ia Muthusami Mudahar v. Masito* . 

* .ge Acts XV. of 1872 (Christian mam (1909), 33 Mad. 342, at p. 349, 
ot 1869 



26 



SCHOOL 



LAW. 



Who are 
governed by 
particular 
schools of law. 

Families 
governed by 
law of ongm. 



ceremonial acceptance, and is frequently a slow one, it seems possible 
throughout India, especially with regard to aborigines. 1 

As the Hindu law is a personal law, a Hindu is presumed to 
be governed by the school of law which governs the locality 
in which he resides. 2 

If a Hindu migrates from one part of the country to another, 
the presumption is that he retains the laws and customs as to 
^accession and family relations prevailing in the Province 
from which he came, 3 at the time of the migration, 4 and is not 
subject to the particular Hindu law administered in the place 
to which he migrates, or to the customs prevalent there, 5 even 
with regard to property which he inherits from a person who is 
governed by the law prevalent in the place to which he migrates. 6 

This presumption also applies to migration from French India to British 
India* 7 

Such presumption may be rebutted by proof that the 



1 See Lyall's "Asiatic Studies, 1 ' p. 
104; Monier Williams' "Religious 
Thought and Life in India," pt. L p. 
57 ; W. J. Wilkins' ' Modern Hindu- 
ism, 1 * p 177 ; Sher Bahadur (Bhaiyd) 
v.Ganga Baksh Singh (BJiaiya) (1913), 
41 L A. 1, at p. 14 j 36 AIL 101, at 
p. 116 ; 18 C. W. N. 401, at pp. 406, 
407 ; 16 Bom. L. R. 306, at p. 316. 

* J?am Das v. Chandra Dassia 
(1892), 20 Calc. 409; Jugo Bundhoo 
Tewaree v. Kurum Singh (1874), 22 
W. R. C. R. 341. 

9 Parbati Kumari Debt (Srimati 

Rani) v. Jagadis Chunder Dhabal 

(1902), 29 L A. 82 ; 29 Calc. 433 ; 6 

C. W. N. 490 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 365 (see 

this case as to evidence supporting 

this presumption) ; Ambabaiv. Govind 

(1898), 23 Bom. 257, at p. 263; 

tfoorendronath May v. Heenmonee 

Burmoneah (1868), 12 M, I. A. 81 ; 

1 B. L. R. P. C. 26 ; 10 W. R. P. 0. 

35; Gndhari LaU Roy v. Bengal 

Government (1868), 12 M. I. A. 448, 

fct pp. 458, 459 ; 1 B. L. R. P. C. 44, 

at p. 46 ; 10 W, R. P. C. 31 ; Rutche- 

pwty, DiM Jha v. Rajunder Narain 

Roe (1839), 2J I, A. 133, at p. 168 ; 

Pudmawti (Eowy} v. Doolw Singh 

(Baboo) (1847), 4 JMt I. A. 259 ; 7 

W. R. p. 0. 41; KuMa Prasad 



Pandey v. Haripada Chatterjee (1912), 
40 Calc. 407 ; 17 C. W. N. 102 ; Go- 
vind Chandra Dai v. Radha Kristo Das 
(1909), 31 All. 477 ; Lukkea Debta v. 
GungagobindDo1>ey,W.l&. 1864, C. R. 
56 ; Huropershad Roy Chowdhry v. 
Shibo Shunkuree Ohowdhrain (1870), 
13 W. R. 0. R. 47 ; KoomuA Chunder 
Roy v. Seetakanth Roy (1863), W. R. 
F. *B. R. 75; Sonatun Misser v. 
Ruttun Mallah (1864), W. R. 1864, 
C. R. 95; Ootum Chunder Shutta- 
charjee v. Obhoychurn Misser (1862), 
W. R. F. B. R. 67 ; S. C, sub nomine 
Junaruddeen Misser v. Nobin Chunder 
Perdham, Marshall, 232 ; Ram Bromo 
Pandah v. Kaminee Soonduree Dos$ee 
(1866), 6 W. R. C. R. 295; Mailathi 
Anni v. Subbaraya Mudaliar (1901), 
24 Mad. 650. See Chandika Bakhsh 
v. Muna Kuar (1902), 29 I. A. 70 ; 
24 AH. 273 ; 3 C. W. N, 425 ; 4 Bom. 
I* R. 376. 

* See Vamdevan v. Secretary of 
We (1887), 11 Mad. 157, at p. 

162. 

* See ByjnatJi P&rshad v. Kopilmon 
Singh (1875), 24 W. R. 0. R. 95. 

Btagabati Koer v. Sahudra Koer 
(1911), 16 C. W. N. 831 

7 Mailathi Anni v. Subbaraya 
Mudaliar (1901), 24 Mad, 650. 



CUSTOM. 



27 



Individual or hitf ancestors had adopted tho law, usages, or 
religious ceremonies of tho country of his residence. 1 

" It IB not by looking merely at the performance of occasional local 
festivals that wo can judge by what rule tho family in governed. .But 
wo mut look to tho more important rites and ceremonies which am 
performed by them, namely, to those which attend births, marriage, and 
deaths in the family*** * 

Jains would ordinarily be governed by the Mitalcshara school, 8 but 
it has boon held that in tho atacuco of evidence tlw Hindu law applioabto 
in that part of tho country in which they dwdl would apparently be appli- 
cable.* HaHtri(^( < .Sarkar s ays/* The Jftinan of Bengal , . . arcgovuniwd 
by tho MitakKhara law of the country of their origin, and not by the Paya- 
bhaga school prevailing herd" 

CUSTOM. 

In administering tho Hindu law, tho (Courts* am ivquiml 
to givn cffoet to a custom, i.e. to a rul* in which a particular 
family or in a particular canto or class, 7 or in a particular 
dintrict, 8 hart from long urtuj{( k obtained thn foreo of 

* Baa Mam Btoma Pandah v. &V 
miiuta floondum I^MM<S (1806), W* 
R. (1 E. 205 j fwMi Kuiwri Jtebi 
(Nrimti Manty v- Japadi* Ohunder 
Dtutbal (190ft)* 20 I A. 821 * 20 C&la, 
43 ; a W, N, 490 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 
$05; ftoonndromth ltoy v. //ram* 
mow? ItttTHwnfith (1B08), 12 M. I. A* 
8I f at p. JMi; 1 B. U H. (R <'.) 2, 
at p. 3 ; IW W. R, l\ U im at p. 8 ; 
ItflJ Cfkundw Nnrnin dhowdry v. 
(jMttkhund (toh (180 1), t Bn. S**L It 
4!t (miw <Mtlon, W>) ; Oof m (,'hundtr 
fthuUadiarjte v. Obhaychnm 

7 It S 1 B R 17 * H 



Air 



W, B. 'tt B. 



dtf n Koowar (MwMmut) (It17) B W, 
&0.& Uatp, 118. 

* *' Law of Adoption," p, 303. 

* A family cmfttom i calked a 
KMMr. Bw Urjun, Sing (Htwul) 
v. fUwMfai* Ming (Rttunti) (1851), 5 
M. I. A, m ; r/iw^ /; #ity& (. 
/>w>) v, JMttkwhttr *S'f//i (At ahum jit h 
(IHTiTi), M. I. A. JJ; t'ltintamHH, 
Ninyk (( 'hottvlhry) v* Niwluftlw Kt>n- 
wtri (MuMnmtt) (1875), 2 L A. aW3 ; 

. 1/J; 24 W, R. (1. It. 200$ 
i Vtput (ttfaw) v, Nundrafatf 
(1874), 11 Bom, H. U 21(1, at w> 
200, 270, 

7 For inHtanoo, tho cuHtomn of the) 
Nambhudri Brahmins ; m>o KOPI w<i5zm 
v. Secretary of Statc (1887), 11 Mad. 



//wro Pershod Itoy Chowdhry v. 
y?ttre<? Vhowdhrain (lH70) f 
13 W. R, 0* R. 47, &m l^mam^' 
(Kany) r, /Awfrir *Vi*w (/l6oo) (1847) 
4 BL L A. 254) ; 7 W. R. R a 41 j 
v, Www* Vfe*wfa fitowvmma 
6*00^ (1MI) 9 I ImL Jur., CX H. 



JM (IW), Sf a W, N. 

;. v, , , 

Jfo^ft^r Pmtod (l^i) r. 



* A local custom m called 
)uoh ouMtom In only applicable^ 
PPFHOKIK domioibd in th0 plaoo ir^ 
it in in lotoc ; oe Padam Kumari 
.Vuraj /Cumari ( 1906), 28 All 45S. 

" Murpwthad v, #Am />jM (IH 
3 1 A, 200, at p. 285; 20 W. 
0, R, 00 at p. 70; MamM 
v. Siwwntka Pmtintd 
(1872), 14 M L A. 070, 
p. 085 ; L A. Hup vol. 1, at p. 
12 B* L. E. 300, at p. 598 ; 17 W* 
a R, 05ft, 



at 
3 1 



.CUSTOM, 



Under the Hindu system of law clear proof of usage will 
outweigh the written text of the law." i 

In the following enactments this principle has been recognized by the 
Legislature ; 

Bom. Beg. IV. of 1827, s. 26 ; Madras Civil Courts Act (III. of 1873), 
s. 16 ; Lower Burma Courts Act (XI. of 1889), s. 4 ; Central Provinces 
Laws Act (XX. of 1875), s. 5 ; Oudh Laws Act (XVHL of 1876), s. 3 ; 

jab Laws Act (IV. of 1872), s. 5, as amended by Act XII. of 1878, s. 1. 



Conditions of ^^The Courts cannot give effect to a custom unless it be 
ancient, 3 definite, 3 continuous, 4 notorious, 3 and reasonable. 6 



1 Collector of Madura v. Moottoo 
JKamalinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M. 
I. A. 397, at p. 436; 1 B. L. R. 
P. 0. 1, at p. 12 ; 10 W. R. P. C. 17, 
at p. 21 ; Tara Chand v. Keel Earn 
(1866), 3 Mad, H. C. 50, at pp. 55-58 ; 
Nawji Utpat (Bkau) v. Sundrdbai 
(1874), 11 Bom. H. C. 249. See 
"Manu," chap, i, paras. 108, 110; 
chap. viii. paras. 41, 46; "Mitak- 
shara," chap. i. s. 3, para. 4 ; 
" Dayatattwa," chap. i. para. 33; 
"Mayukha," chap. L s. 1, para. 13. 
Dr. J. N. Bhattacharya ("Hindu 
Law," 2nd ed., pp. 50, 51) contends 
that according to the true translation 
of Manu's Code, custom does not 
prevail against an express provision 
of law. 

a Hvrpwshad v. Sheo Dyal (1876), 
3 1. A. 259, at p. 285 ; 26 W. R. C. R. 
55, at p. 70; RamalaJcshmi Ammal 
v. Sivanantha Perv*x,u,l Sethurayar 
(1872), 14 M. L A. 570, at pp. 585, 
586 ; I. A Sup. vol. 1, at p. 3 ; 12 
B. L. R. 396, at p. 398 ; 17 W. R, C. 
R. 553 ; S. C. in court below, Siva- 
nananja Perumal Sethurayar v. Muttu 
Ramalinga Sethurayar (1866), 3 Mad. 
H. C. 75, at p. 77 ; Nugendur Narain 
" v. Rughoomth Narain Dey, 

. B. 1864, p. 20, at p. 23. 
Or, as it may be expressed, cer- 
precise, and conclusive. Bur- 
Y, Sheo Dyal (1876), 3 I. A. 
259, at p. 285; 26 W. R. C. R. 55, 
*$$. 70 ; Rcmakanta Das Maha$>atra 
^SJum^nandDas (Chowdhuri) (1908), 
36 1 A, 40; 36Calc. 590 ; 13 C. W. N, 
581 ; 11 &o%,L, R. 530 ; EajTcisUn 
Singh v. &wjt$ Swrma Mozoomdar 
(1872), 1 Gale, m^ pp. 195, 196 ; 
19 W. R. a R. 8, at fr^l 



Da* v. Balgobind Sing (1868), 1 
B. L. R p S. N. is. ; Doorga PersJiad 
Singh (Tekaet) v. Doorga Kooeree 
(Tekaetnee) (1873), 20 W. R. C. R. 154, 
at p. 157. 

* In other words, uniform, un- 
interrupted, invariable. Nugendur 
Narain (Majah) v. Rughoonatk Narain 
Dey, W. R. 1864, p. 20, at p. 24; 
RamalafaJimi Ammal v. Sivanantha 
Perumal Sethurayar (1872), 14 M. I. 
A. 570, at pp. 585, 586 ; I. A. Sup. 
vol. I, at p. 3 ; 12 B. L. R. 396, at 
P- 398 ; 17 W. R. C. R. 553 ; S. C. in 
Court below, Sivanananja Perumal 
Sethurayar v. Muttu JRamalingct Sethu- 
rayar (1866), 3 Mad. H. C. 75, at p. 
77; Qopafayyan v. Raghupattayyan 
(1873), 7 Mad. H. C. 250, at p. 254 ; 
Soorendronalh Hoy v. Heeramonee 
Burmoneah (1868), 12 M. I. A. 81, at 
P- 91 ; 10 W. R. P. C. 35, at p. 36 ; 
Rajkishen Singh (Rajah) v. Eamjoy 
Surma Mozoomdar (1872), 1 Calc. 
186, at p. 195 ; 19 W. R. C. R. 8, at 
p. 11 ; Jugmohandas Mangaldas v. 
Mangaldas Nathubhoy (Sir) (1886), 
10 Bom. 528, at p. 543. See Amrit 
Nath Chowdkry v. Gauri Nath Chow- 
dhry (1870), 6 B. L. R. 232, at p. 
238 ; Jameelah Khatoon v. Pegul Mam 
(1864), 1 W. R. C, R. 250 ; Vandra- 
van Jekisan (Patel) v. Manifal Chuni- 
fal (Patel) (1891), 16 Bom. 470, at 
P. 476. 

5 See Juggomolwn Ghose v. Manwk* 
chnnd (1859), 7 M. L A. 263, at p. 
282; 4W.R.P.C.8,atp.lO; Gopa- 
fayyan v. RagJwpatiayyan (1873), 7 
Mad. H. C. 250, at p. 25 

6 Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal (1876), 
3 I. A. 259, at p. 285 ; 26 W. R. C. R. 
55, at p. 70 ; Lujchmeeput Singh v. 



CUSTOM. 



It is invalid if it be opposed to an express enactment of the 
Legislature, 1 to morality, to public policy, 2 or to justice, equity, 
and good conscience. 3 A custom must be established by clear 
and unambiguous proof,* and must be construed strictly, 5 

With the exception of an old decision in Calcutta, 6 by Grey, C.J., Ancient, 
which fixed 1773 the date of the Act of Parliament which established 
the Supreme Court, and 1793 the date when Regulations commenced to 
be registered, as the time for the commencement of legal memory in Calcutta 
and the Mofussil respectively, there is no decision which has professed to 
define the expression " ancient." That expression is apparently coincident 
with the expression " from time immemorial." 7 

Sadaulla Nushyo (1882), 9 Calc. 698, 
at p. 703 ; 12 C. L. R. 382, at p. 388. 

1 As, for instance, when the dedica- 
tion of minors as dancing-girls of a 
pagoda amounts to an offence under 
ss. 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal 
Code (Act XLV. of I860). Ex parte 
Padmavati (1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 415; 
Queen Empress v. Ramanna (1889), 
12 Mad. 273 ; Srinivasa v. Annasami 
(1892), 15 Mad. 323 ; Reg. v. Jaili 
Bhavin (1869), 6 Bom. H. C. Cr. C. 60, 

2 Chinna Ummayi v. Tegarai Chelti 
(1876), 1 Mad. 168. See also San- 
Jcaralingam Chetti v. Subban Chetti 
(1894), 17 Mad. 479; Ghasiti v. 
Umrao Jan (1893), 20 I. A. 193; 
21 Calc. 149. This is expressed by 
"Maim," chap. viii. para. 41, as 
"if they be not repugnant to the 
law of God." 

8 See Vurmah Valiar (Rajah) v. 
Ravi Vurmah Mutha (1876), 4 1. A. 
76; 1 Mad. 235. Oudh Laws Act 
(XVIII. of 1876), s. 3 ; Punjab Laws 
Act (XII. of 1878), s. 1. As to 
marriage brocage contracts, see post, 
p. 52. 

* Ramalakshmi Ammal v. Siva- 
nantha Perumal Sethurayar (1872), 
14 M. L A. 570, at pp. 585, 586; 
I. A. Sup, vol. I, at p. 3 ; 12 B. L. R. 
306, at p. 398 ; 17 W. R. C. R. 553 ; 
S. C. in Court below, Sivanananja 
Perumal Sethwrayar v. Muttu Rama- 
linga Sethurayar (1866), 3 Mad. H. C. 
76, at p. 77 ; Nugendur Narain 
(Rajah) v. Rughoonath Narain Dey, 
W. R. 1864, p. 20, at p. 23 ; Serumah 
Umah v. Palathan Vitil Marya 
Cto>% Umah (1871), 15 W. R. P. C. 
47? fluohmun Lall v, M ohun XM 
i i$Va |1871)/16 W- R: $ R* 



179; 

10 Bom. H. C. 228; Vandravan 
Jekisan, (Paid) v, Manilal CJiunilal 
(Paid) (1891), 16 Bom. 470. See 
Amrit Nath Chowdhry v. Gauri Natfi 
Chowdliry (1870), 6 B. L. R. 232, at 
p. 238 ; NeelJcisto Deb Burmono v. 
Beerchunder Thalcoor (1869), 12 M. I. 
A. 523, at p. 542 ; 3 B. L. R. (P. C.) 
13, at p. 19; 12 W. R. P. C. 21, at 
p. 24 ; SHagvandas Tejmal v. Rajmal 
(1873), 10 Bom H. C. A. C. 241 ; 
LaTcshmappa v. Ramava (1875), 12 
Bom. H. C. 362, at p. 383. 

5 Hwpurshad v. Sheo Dyal (1876), 
3 1. A. 259, at p. 285 ; 26 W. R. C. R. 
55, at p. 70. 

Clarke's " Reports," pp. 113, 114 
Sircar's " Vyavastha Darpana," 2nd 
ed., p. 314. The reason for this 
decision was that from the dates 
mentioned the powers of making laws 
were vested in the British Legislature. 
Sir G. D. Banerjee (" Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 235), questions 
the correctness of the above-men- 
tioned decision of Grey, C.J., and 
adds, " We may at any rate fairly 
say, that in the Hindu law, not oply 
is it unnecessary to foace baofe tie 
existence of a custom to any definite 
date, but even the indefinite condition 
of being ancient may, in favour of 
some classes of customs, have to be 
dispensed with." It certainly seems 
unreasonable thus to fetter the growth 
of customs, which are encouraged by 
the Hindu law, and which are a means 
by which that law can be adapted to 
modern requirements. 

1 See Luchmun Lall v. Mohun Lall 
Shaya Gayal (1871), 16 W. R. C. 
179; Umriihnath Chowdhry v. 



80 



CUSTOM. 



Discontinu- 
ance of 
custom. 



New grant of 
property 
formerly im- 
partible. 



"What the law requires before an alleged custom can ueoeive the 
recognition of the Court, and so acquire legal force, is satisfactory proof 
of usage so long and invariably acted upon in practice as to show that 
it has by common consent been submitted to as the established governing 
rule of the particular family, class, or district or country." x Such proof 
raises a presumption that the usage was an ancient one, 2 

So far as continuity is concerned there seems to be a distinction between 
a family custom and a local custom. In the former case it is competent 
to the family to discontinue the custom, as, for instance, a custom of 
impartiality, 3 or it may have been accidentally discontinued.* In the 
latter case the omission of individuals to follow the custom could not have 
the effect of destroying it, as it is a part of the lex loci, and binds all persons 
within the local limits in which it prevails. 5 

A well-established custom in a family cannot be defeated by the fact 
that in one case the custom was not enforced. 6 

When the custom has been proved the burden is upon the party alleging 
the discontinuance to prove that fact. 7 

A family custom that property should remain impartible, is not neces- 
sarily destroyed by a new grant being made by the Government to a 
member of the family, 8 but where a new tenure is created, and there is 
nothing in the circumstances under which the new grant was made to lead 
to the inference that the Government had in view in making the new 
grant the creation of an impartible zemindari as an exception to the 
ordinary rule of the Hindu law, the ordinary rules of Hindu law apply. 9 

186* at p. 195 ; 19 W. B. C. B. 8, 
at p. 12 ; Sardbjit Partap Bahadar 
Sahi v. Indarjit Partap Bahadur Sahi 
(1904), 27 All. 203. 

B Rajkishen Singh v. Ramjoy 
Surma Mozoomdar (1872), 1 Calc. 186, 
at p. 195 ; 19 W. R. C. B. 8, at p. 12. 

6 Elcradeswar Singh v. Janeshwari 
Babuasin (1914), 41 I. A. 275, at pp. 
288, 289 ; 42 Calc. 582, at p. 606 ; 
18 C. W. N. 1249, at p. 1259 ; 17 Bom. 
L. B. 18, at p. 31. 

7 Sardbjit Partap Bahadur Sahi v. 
Indarjit Partap Bahadur Sahi (1904), 
27 All. 203. 

8 See Beer Pertab Sahee (Baboo) 
v. Rajender Pertab Sahee (Mahara- 
jah) (1867), 12 M, T. A. 1 ; 9 W. B. 
P. C. 15 ; Mutta Vaduganadha tfevar 
v. Dorasinga Tevar (1881), 8 I, A. 
99 ; 3 Mad, 290 ; JaganatJia v. Rama- 
bhadra (1888), 11 Mad. 380 ; Kachi 
Yum Rangaypa KaUakka Thola 
UAayar v. Kachi Kafyana Rangappa 
Kallakka Thola Udayar (1901), 24 
Mad. 562; upheld on appeal (1905), 
32 J. A. 261 ; 28 Mad, 508; 10 C. W/ 
N. 95; 7 Bom. L. R. 907. 

9 Merangi, Zemindcer of, v. Satru* 
charla Ramctbhadra Earn (Sri Rajah) 



reenath CJwwdhry (1870), 13 M. L A. 
542, at p 549 ; 15 W. R. P. C. 10, at p. 
12 ; S. C. in Court helow, 6 B. L. B. 232. 
1 Sivanananja Perumal Sethurayar 
v f Muttu Ramalinga Sethurayar (1866), 
3 Mad. H. C. 75, at p. 77 ; S. C. on 
appeal, Ramalakshmt Ammal v. Siva- 
nantha Perumal Sethurayar (1872), 
14 M. I. A. 570 ; I. A. Sup. vol 1 ; 
12 B. L. B, 396 ; 17 W. B. C. B. 
553 ; Shidhojirav v. Naikojirav (1873), 
10 Bom. H. C. 228, at p. 234. It was 
held in Mahamaya Debi v. Haridas 
Haldar (1914), 42 Calc. 455 ; 19 a W. 
N. 208, that evidence showing exercise 
of a right in accordance with an alleged 
custom, as far back as living testi- 
mony can go, raises the presumption, 
though only a rebuttable one, as to the 
immemorial existence of the custom. 



. t 

Mad. 9,atp. 14; NanajiUt$at(Bhau)v. 
Sundrabai (1874), 11 Bom. H. C. 249. 

8 It was assumed that such dis- 
continuance was possible ia Ltkhraj 
Kuwwar (Fhakurain) v. Harpal Singh 
(Thokwr) (1911), 39 1. A. 10 ; 34 All. 65 ; 
16 C. W. K 217; 14 Bom. L. B. 33. 

* Rqjkfehen Singh v. Ramjoy 
Surma, Hozoomdar (1872), 1 Calc. 



CUSTOM. 81 

A family custom is personal, and does not apply to subsequent owners 
of the land held by the family. 1 

The following are illustrations of customs which have been held void Immorality, 
for immorality : 

A custom allowing a woman to remarry during the lifetime of her 
husband and without his consent, 2 

A custom authorizing a husband or wife to divorce the other against his 
or her will, and without giving any reason, on condition only of a payment 
to the caste.* 

A custom for dancing-girls to adopt daughters under circumstances 
which would amount to a traffic in minors as prohibited by ss. 372 and 
373 of the Indian Penal Code ; * but except where the recognition of the 
rights alleged would countenance such a traffic, or the usage is in itself 
immoral, 5 the Courts will give effect to the rights of dancing-girls attached 
to Hindu temples in respect of endowments for their support, 6 and also 
to the peculiar usages of the dancing-girl and prostitute classes with 
regard to adoption 7 and succession. 8 

There is nothing immoral or opposed to public policy in a tribal custom 
which requires a son-in-law to reside in the family of his father-in-law. 9 

A custom will not be applied unless those following the custom are 
convinced in conscience that they are acting in accordance with law. 10 

I* Judicial recognition is not a condition precedent to the Judicial 
validity of a custom, 11 but such recognition maybe of great recogm lon ' 
value as evidence of the existence of that custom, 12 

(1891), 18 I. A. 45, at ^>. 53 j 14 tfa0ara^am(1870),5Mad.H.C. 161. 

Mad, 237, at p. 245 ; Venkakt Na- 9 Lenga Ldlung v. Pengwi Lalungni 

rasimha Appa Row Bahadur (Rajah) (1915), 20 C. W. N. 406. 

v. Narayya Appa Row Bahadur 10 Qopafayyan v. RagJiupatiayyan 

(Rajah) (1879), 7 I. A. 38 ; 2 Mad. (1873), 7 Mad. H.-C. 250, at p. 254. 

128 ; 6 C. L. R. 153. See Vandravan Jekisan (Patel) v. 

1 Gopal Das Sindh v. Nurotum Manilal Chunilal (Patel) (1891), 16 

Sindh (1845), 7 Ben. Sel. R. 195 (2nd Bom. 470, at p. 476. 

ed., 230), u See Mayne's "Hindu Law," 8th 

4 Post, p. 63. ed., pp. 56-58. In Narasammal v. 

3 Ke$hav Hargovan v. Oandi (Bai) Balaramacharlu (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 

(1915), 39 Bom. 513; 17 Bom. L. R. 420, at p. 424, Holloway, J., said, 

584. " A very short experience will suffice 

* Act XLV. of 1860. to satisfy any judge that a pundit 

8 OMnna Ummayi v. Tegarai CfatU will always overcome a passage of 

(1876 VI Mad. 168. Hindu law too stubborn for other 

8 War Nailrin v. Nona Latolman manipulation by the often baseless 

(1889), 14 Bom. 90 j Kamalam v. allegation of custom." He proceeds 

Sadagopa Sami (1878), 1 Mad. 356; to say, "And in our judgment no 

Mathu,raNaikinv.E8uN<iikin(l8W), custom, how long soever continued, 

4 Bom. 545, at p. 565, See CJiinna which has never been judicially recog- 

Ummayi v, Tegarai Cletti (1876), nized, can be permitted to prevail 

1 Mad. 168. against distinct authority." It is 

7 Post, pp. 163, 164. submitted that this last proposition 

8 Tar* Munnee Doma v. Motee cannot be supported. 

BWW&IU& (1846), 7 Ben. Sel. R. 273 * 2 See Act I. of 1872, s. 42; SUmbhu 
$$ <wt 325) ; Sivasangu v, Minal NatJi v. Gayanchand, (1894), 16 All. 

v, 379. 



32 

Burden of In the case of persons governed generally by the Hindu 

custom! taw, the burden of proving a custom derogatory to that law 
lies upon the person who asserts it, 1 

If it be shown that a custom applies to a particular class or community, 
the burden of showing that the individual member is not bound by it lies 
upon the person asserting such exception. 2 

In the case of a tribe or family which are not originally Hindu, but 
which has adopted Hinduism, the burden of proving that the family is 
governed in a particular matter by the Hindu law is upon the person 
who asserts that it is so governed. 3 

j- Where a custom prevails in one branch of a family, it is strong evidence 
that it applies with equal force to another branch of the same family. 4 

As to proof of the devolution of an impartible Raj, sec Mohwh (Jlwndir 
DUl v. SatrugJian Dhal (1902), 29 I. A. 62 ; 29 Calc. 343 ; G C. W. N. 
459 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 372. 

As to proof of the customs of Jains, see Harnalb Perslml v, Mandil 
Dass (1899), 27 Calc, 379. 

As to the mode of proof of a custom, see Act I. of 1872, ss. 13, 32, 42, 
48, 49. 

" The kind of evidence that ought to be regarded is evidence showing 
that the right claimed by custom was more or less contested and the 
contest abandoned by some one who, if the custom had not existed, would 
have been entitled, or evidence showing that generally in the district the 
custom was followed to the exclusion of persons who, if it had not be<*n 
for the custom, would presumably have enforced the right under the; 
general law." 6 Decrees and an understanding in the family, 6 cntrioH in 
village records, and answers to official inquiries, 7 declarations of the heads 
of families 8 are all evidence. 



v. Bhagwan S^ng7l * As, for instance, tho law of 

(1899), 26 I. A, 153, at p. 165 ; 21 adoption, Fanindra Deb Raikat v, 

All. 412, at p. 423 ; 3 C. W. N. 454, at Rajeswar Dass (1885), 2 L A, 72, at 

p. 459 ; 1 Bom. L. E. 311 ; Chandika p. 81 ; 11 Gale. 4f53, at p. 470. 

Baksh v. Muna Kuar (1902), 29 I. A. \Lal Gajendra Nath faM Deo v, 

70 ; 24 All. 273 ; 6 0. W. N. 425 ; 4 Lai Mathuralal Nath Sahi Deo ( 1010), 

Bom. L. E. 376 ; Fanindra Deb Raikat 1 Pat. L. J. 109. 

v. Rajeswar Dass (1885), 12 1. A. 72, at s Mama Nand v. Surgiani ( 1 804) 

p. 81 ; 11 Calc. 463, at p. 476 ; Basava 1 6 All 221 , at p. 223. 

v. Linyanffauda (1894), 19 Bom 428, Mohesh Chunder Dhal v. ftainta* 

at p, 473; Desat Ranchlioddas v. Rawal han Dhal (1902), 29 I. A 02- 20 

Nathutai (1895), 21 Bom. 110, at pp. Gala 343 ,- C. W. N. 451)"; 4 iom 

116, 117 ; Bhagvandas Tejmal v. Raj. L. E 372 



n' - ' - ^ anarpa 

260 ; Narayan Babatf v. Nona Mano- Kunwar (Rani) (1909), 36 I, A. 12f> * 

lor (1870), 7 Bom H. G. A. C. 153, at 31 All. 457 ,* 13 0. W N 1073 * 11 

P r* A 75 ******** Sin & (&$<&) v. Bom. L. R. 890. As to a wajib uUra, 

JMaSng* (1873), 19 W. E. G. E. BOO Anant Singh (TUakw) V. D*2' 

211 7 Jutoafo Sahee Deo (Thakoor) v. Singh (TMkur) (1910), 37 L A. 101 ii 

Lakwtfh, Sahee Deo (1873), 19 W. E. 32 AIL 303 ; 34 C. W. N, 770 - Iflf 

0. B, 239; and cases, ante, p. 29, Bom. L. E. 504. 



c' n*< z />, 8 ^ww**^ Xoer (MaJiararti) v, 

See Mate v. OMato (1902), Ram Narayan Siny (Baboo) (J87) f 
4 Bom. U E. 376, 9 . \ 



CHAPTEE I 

HUSBAND AND WIPE. 

MARRIAGE. 

THE relationship of husband and wife is created by a marriage, Creation of 
entered into by two persons, who are each competent, according reIatlonshl P- 
to Hindu law, to enter into the state of marriage, 1 and who are 
not debarred by that law from intermarrying, 2 such maniage 
being performed with the ceremonies prescribed by that law. 3 

According to Hindu ideas, marriage has for its object the performance Object of 
of religious duties. It is a sanskar, that is, an essential ceremony, held marria g e 
indispensable to constitute the perfect purification of a Hindu. 4 It is 
the last of the ten sanskars necessary for the regeneration of males of the 
twice-born classes, 5 and is the only one prescribed for women and for 



Marriage is essential to a Hindu in order that by begetting a son he Necessity for 
may be delivered from the hell called put, to*which the shades of a sonless 
man are, according to Hindu ideas, doomed, 7 that he may" repay the debt 
he owes to his forefathers, 8 and that he may be able to perform some of 
the most important religious acts. 9 

It is the imperative religious duty of a father, or other Duty of 
guardian, 10 to cause a girl to be married, before she attains girl. 
puberty, to a suitable husband, capable of procreating children, 11 
There is, however, no legal obligation. 12 

* Post, pp. 34-38. pp. 158, 293, 294. 

a Post, pp. 38-46. 8 " Dattaka Mimansa," dhap. i. 

8 Post, pp, 58-61. para. 5. 

4 Wilson's f * Giossary," p, 463. Bhattacharya'a " Hindu Law/* 

B Oototooofo's "Digest/ 7 vol. ill., 2nd cd., p. 81. 

j). 104, note. 10 As to the persons upon whom 

Colebrooke's "Digest," vol. iii,, the duty devolves, see post, pp. 46-48. 

p. 95. See Venkatacharyulu v. Ran- ll Jumoona Dassya Chotodbrani v. 

gacharyulu (1890), 14 Mad. 316, at JBamasoonderai Dattsyd Chowdhrani 

p. 318 ; Kameswara Sastri v. Veera- (1876), 3 I. A. 72, at p. 78 ; 1 Calc. 

charlu (1910), 34 Mad. 422 ; Snnivasa 289, at pp. 294, 295 ; 25 W. B. C. K. 

lyangar v. Thiravengadathaiyangar 235, at p. 236; Venkatacharyulu v. 

(1914)J 38 Mad. 556. RangwTwryulu (1890), 14 Mad. 316, 

7 " Manu," chap. ix. para. 138 ; at p. 322. 

'** Djiy*Wh*," ^ a P* v * P ara ' 6; 1S ^ w ^ m ' -Ammcd v - Subramwfa 

^t^Mixmm^ ,.<**?. L , p*ra. 4w (1902), 26 Mad, 505. 

5 j fcb^kcw&fc^ ^Big^" vol ik, ' 
' 



H.L, 



WHO MAY MABRY. 



[CHAP. I. 



Duty of 
guardian of 
boy* 



Who are 
competent to 
marry. 



Defects. 



Lunacy. 



Although the law permits the marriage of boys who have 
not attained majority, 1 and marriage is a religious necessity for 
them, 2 such marriages by male minors do not seem to have 
been contemplated by the sages and early writers on Hindu 
law, 3 There is, it is submitted, a moral or religious obligation 
upon a parent, or other guardian, to provide a wife for a boy, 
as there is to provide a husband for a girl, 4 and there is a right 
to provide for his marriage, and for its expenses, 6 

WHO MAY MARRY, 

Unless expressly prohibited by a provision of the Hindu 
law, any male Hindu is competent to marry, and every un- 
married Hindu female is competent to be given in marriage, 6 

A garbari gosavi 7 is competent to contract a valid marriage. 8 
The Hindu law regards the bridegroom as the person who marries, 
and the bride as the person who is taken in marriage. 9 

Physical and mental defects, even if they be such as to cause 
exclusion from inheritance, 10 do not invalidate a marriage. 11 

Unsoundness of mind does not invalidate a marriage. 
"To put it at the highest, the objection to a marriage on the ground 
of mental incapacity must depend upon a question of degree." ia 



i Post, p. 35. 

* Ante, p. 33. Sundrabai v. Shri- 
narayana (1907), 32 Bom. 81 ; 9 Bom. 
L.K. 1366 Oopalafyishnamv. Venka- 
tawrasa (1912),, 37 Mad. 273. 

8 "Manu," chap. ix. para. 94; 
Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," 2nd 
ed., pp. 81, 82. See Banerjee's 
" Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 37. 

* See Kameswara Sa&tri v. Veera* 
cJiarlu (1910), 34 Mad. 422; Sun- 
drabai v.Shrinarayana (1907), 32 Bom. 
81 ; 9 Bom. L. B. 1366 ; Gopala&rish* 
ncm v. Venlcatanarasa (1912), 37 Mad. 
273, overruling Govindwazidu Nara- 
simham v. Devarabhotla Verikatanwa- 
sayya (1903), 27 Mad. 206, 

6 Kameswara Sastri v, Verracharlu 
(1910), 34 Mad. 422 ; GopaUkrislnam 
v. Venlcatanarasa (1912), 37 Mad. 273, 
overruling Govindarazulu Narasim- 
JWm , v. Devarabhafla Verikatanara* 
o/3/a (1903), 27 Mad. 206, see post, 
pp. 52,53. ; , 

8 B" of Marriage," 



7 These arc a class of religious 
mendicants. 

8 Gitabai v. SMvbakas (1903), 5 
Bom. L. B. 318. 

9 Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 
3rded., p. 35; Bhattacharya's " Hindu 
Law," 2nd ed., p. 81. 

10 As to the physical defects which 
cause exclusion from inheritance, 
see Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," 2nd 
ed., pp. 349-351; Sarkar's "Hindu 
Law," pp. 232-235 ; Mayne's " Hindu 
Law," 8th ed., pp. 829-837, and cases 
there cited ; post, pp. 52, 53. 

11 "Manu," chap. ix. para. 203; 
" Mitakshara," chap. u. s. 10, paras. 
9-11; "VivadaChintamani" (P. 0. 
Tagore's translation), p. 244 ; " Vya- 
vahara Mayukha," chap. v. s. 11, 
para, 11, " Smriti Chandrika," chap. 
v. para. 32. 

1 2 Mouji Lai v. Ohandrdbati Kumctri 
(Musammat) (1911), 38 I. A. 122, at 
p. 125; 38 Calc. 700, at p. 706; 15 
0. W. N. 790, at p. 793 ; 13 Bom. 
L, It 534, at p. 541. 



CHAP. I.] AGE. 35 

Pundits both in Bengal l and Bombay 2 have given opinions that it does 
not invalidate a marriage. Sir G. D. Banerjee points out that " there are 
indications in the law from which it would appear that lunatics are con- 
sidered competent to marry," 3 but he also says 4 that, as a lunatic is 
incompetent to accept the gift of a bride, it is not easy to understand 
how his marriage can be regarded as marriage at all. 

The question of mental incapacity is one of degree. The Court will 
presume in favour of the validity of the marriage, and the legitimacy of the 
children. 5 

The ancient authorities permitted a eunuch to marry on the ground Impotence, 
that his wife could raise up a son to him by a man legally appointed, 6 
but now that the system of niyoya 7 is obsolete, it may be a question 
whether the Courts will not declare the marriage of an impotent person 
to be void. 8 

Except that in the case of the twice-born classes marriages Age for 
cannot take place before investiture with the sacred thread, mamage " 
a malo Hindu of any age can marry. 10 

A female Hindu of any age can be given in marriage, 11 

The Hindu religion requires a girl to be given in marriage before she 
attains the age of puberty, la but there is nothing in the Hindu law to 
invalidate the marriage of a woman who has attained puberty. 13 

As to the necessity for the consent of a guardian in the case of the 
marriage of minors, see post, pp. 46-51 



1 See VenJtsalatfiaryulu v. Ranga* of Hindu Widows," pp. 4, 7 j Steele, 
charyulu (1890), 14 Mad. 316, at p. p. 167; Kanahi Earn v. Biddya Ram 
318 5 Dalychurn Hitter v. Radhatfiurn (1878), I All. 54=9, at p. 551. 

MilUr (1817), 2 Mori Big. 99. 9 The rule is that the investiture 

2 West and Biihler's" Hindu Law," of a Brahmin should take place in 
2nd od,, p. 274. the eighth, that of a Kshatrya in 

8 *' Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., ps the eleventh, and that of a Vaisya 

38 ; *' Mann," chap. ix. para. 203 ; in tho twelfth year from his oon- 

"Baya Bhaga," chap. v. para. 18; caption, "Mann," chap. ii. para. 36. 

" Mitakshara," chap. ii. s. 10, paras. 10 Banerjoe's "Law of Marriage,' 1 

9-11; "Vivada Ohintamani " (P. C. 3rded. ? p.36. Bhattacharya's f 'Hindu 

Tagoro's translation), p. 244 ; ie Smriti Law,'* 2nd ed., p. 82. Seo FeraWocW- 

Chandrika," chap. v. para. 32 ; yufa v. Jfangaduwyuki (1800), 14 Mad. 

"Vyavahara, Mayukha," chap, iv, 336, at p. 318. 

s. 11, para. 11. " Sir G. B. Banerjco (" Law of 

* P. 39, Marriage," Srded., p. 45) says, " Ordi- 

5 Moujt Lai v. Ckandrdbati Kumari narily tho lowest age far marriage is 
(Musammat) (1911), 38 I. A. 122 ; eight years, but Manu allows a girl 
38 Calc. 700 ; 15 C. W. N. 790 ; to be married even before tho proper 
13 Bom. L. R. 534. ago, if a proper union is secured" 

6 " Manu," chap. ix. para. 203 ; (" Manu," chap. ix. para. 88, and note 
" Baya Bhaga," chap. v. para. 18. by Kulluka), 

Post, pp. 45, 100, J'39-141. " Ante, p. 33. 

8 gee Banerjee's '/Law of Mar- w Banerjee's "Law of Marriage/' 

'Hfwjft/* $rd ed,, p/40; Parasara, , 3rd ed., p, 45, 
quoted in Vidyasagar's "Marriage 



86 



POLYGAMY. 



[CHAP, i. 



Polygamy* 



Christian, 



A Hindu i may at his pleasure marry any number of wives, 
although he has a wife or wives living. 2 

No effect can be given to an agreement purporting to avoid a marriage 
on the taking of a second wife during the lifetime of the first, 3 and appa- 
rently an agreement not to enter into such second marriage would be 
against the policy of the Hindu Law.* 

Contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the wife is called 
adhivedaw, or supersession, but does not in any way imply that the first 
wife is deserted. 8 

The Hindu writers prescribe that a present (adhivedamkt) should be 
given to the wife as compensation for her supersession, but they do not 
agree as to the amount. 3 Such compensation could not apparently be 
claimed in a Court of law. 

A Hindu, who has become a Christian, cannot take to 
himself another wife while his wife is alive, 7 

He can do so on his return to Hinduism. 8 

A woman cannot marry another man while her husband 
is alive, 9 

Although the Courts will not recognize a custom which permits & 
wife at her pleasure to desert her husband and marry another man, 10 at 



* Even if he has at one time pro- 
fessed Christianity, 3 Mad. H. C. 
App. vii. 

* See Virazvami Chetti v. Appa- 
svami ami (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 
375 ; Arumugam v. Tuluhtnam (1883), 
7 Mad. 187, at p. 188; Thapita 
Peter v. Thapita Lakshmi (1894), 
17 Mad. 235, at p. 239 ; Suree Bhaee 
Nana v. Nwthoo Koober (1810), 1 Borr. 
59; Banerjee, "Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., pp. 40, 136; "Daya 
Bhaga," chap. ix. para. 6, note ; 
Sircar's "Vyavastha Darpana," p. 
672. Polygamy is not permitted to 
members of the Brahmo Somaj ; Sona- 
luxmi v. Vishnuprasad Hariprasad 
(1903), 28 Bom. 597 ; 6 Bom. L. R. 58. 

8 Sitaram v. Aheeree Heerahnee 
(Mussamut} (1873), 11 B. L. R. 
129 ; 20 W. R. C. R. 49. 

* See ibid., per Kemp, J., 11 B. L. 
R 1? at p. 135 ; 20 W. R. C. R., at p. 
50. Would it not be, from the Hin- 
du point of view, an agreement in 
restraint of marriage, and therefore 
void under s. 26 of the Indian Con- 
tract Act (IX. of im) ? 



s See "Mitakshara," chap.ils. 11, 
paras. 2 (note) and 35 ; Emperor v. 
Law (1907), 30 Mad. 550. 

< See Banerjee's "Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rded., pp. 138, 139; "Mitak- 
shara," chap. ii. s. 11, para. 35; 
"Dayakrama Sangraha," chap. vi. 
para. 31; Colebrooke's "Digest," 
vol. iii. p. 561. 

7 See Thapita Peter v. Thapita 
Lakshmi (1894), 17 Mad. 235 ; ante, 
p. 23, note 6. 

8 Emperor v. Anthony (1910), 33 
Mad. 371 ; (1866), 3 Mad. H. C. App. 
vii. See, however, Emperor v. Lazar 
(1907), 30 Mad. 550. 

* Thapita Peter v. Thapita Lakshmi 
(1894), 17 Mad, 235, at p. 239. 
"Manu," chap. viii. para. 226; 
chap. ix. paras. 46, 47, 71. See 
Sinammal v. Administrator-General 
of Madras (1885), 8 Mad. 169, at 
p. 173. 

10 NarayanBJwrtJiiv. Laving Bharthi 
(1877), 2 Bom. 140 ; Reg. v. Sambhu 
Raghu (1876), 1 Bom. 347 ; Keg. v. 
Karsan Ooja (1864), 2 Bom. H. C. 
124; Uji v. Hathi Lalu (1870), 



CHAP, I.] BB-MARBIAOH, 37 

any rate where the first husband does not consent to the second marriage, 1 
it would apparently give effect to a custom permitting such remarriage 
on desertion by the husband. 2 A custom authorizing such remarriage 
in case of the husband's leprosy might also be valid. 3 It has been held that 
a custom by which the marriage tie can be dissolved by either husband or 
wife against the wish of the divorced party, the sole condition being the 
payment of a sum of money fixed by the caste, is bad, 4 

No eff ect could be given to the decision of a panchayet or of a caste which 
authorizes a remarriage, 5 except, perhaps, where by custom a valid divorce 
could be effected by such decision. 8 

Where divorce is permissible by custom, 7 or where a divorce Remarriage 
has been decreed under Act XXI. of 1866, 8 a woman can &ter 
remarry. 

The marriage of a girl, who has been betrothed 9 (but not Betrothedgiri. 
married) to another man, is valid, 10 

A widow can remarry. 11 Remarriage of 

^ widow, 

As to the forfeiture of her rights on remarriage, see post, pp. 369, 370. 
Except in the case of a special custom 12 the remarriage of widows was 

prohibited by the Hindu law, which was in force at the time of the passing 1 '' 

of Act XV, of 1856. 13 

The Hindu law placed certain restrictions upon marriage Moral 
by rules, which are now treated as operating only as moral injimotloas * 
injunctions. 

Impurity arising from the birth or death of a relation was treated as a 
disqualification. x * 

7 Bom. H. C. A. C. J. 133 ; Reg. v. 8 Post, p. 64. 
ManoJiar Raiji (1868), 5 Bom. H. C. 9 Post, pp. 58, 59. 

Or. C. 17. See In the matter of CJiamia l Khimji Vassonji v. Narsi Dhanji 

(Musst) (1880), 7 0. L E. 354. (1915), 39 Bom. 682 ; 17 Bom. L. E. 

1 See Khemlcor v. Umiashankar 225 ; LakU Priya v. Bhairab Chandra 

Ranchhor (1873), 10 Bom. H. 0. Chaudhuri (1835), 5 Ben. Sel. E, 315 

381. (2nd ed., 369) ; Khooshdl v. Ehugwan 

8 Virasangappav.Rudrappa(l$S5), MoUe (1813), 1 Borr. 138 f See Aot 

8 Mad. 440. See Sinammal v. Ad- XV. of 1856, s. 1. 
mimsfrator-Gemral of Madras (1885), ll Act XV. of 1856, s. 1. 

8 Mad. 169, at p. 173. 12 Strange's "Hindu Law," vol. ii. p. 

* See Reg. v. Sambhu RagJvu, (1876), 400. As to such customs, see Mayne'a 

1 Bom. 347, at p. 352. " Hindu Law," 8th ed., pp. 113-117. 

4 Keshav Hargovan v. Oandi (Bai) 13 " Manu,'* chap. v. paras. 157, 

(1915), 39 Bom. 538 ; 17 Bom. L. E. 161 ; Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i. 

#84. pp. 37, 241, vol. ii. p. 400 ; Sircar's 

6 See Bissuram Koiree v. The " Vyavastha Darpana," p. 647. In 

Empress (1878), 3 0. L. E. 410, at Vithuv. Oovinda (1896), 22 Bom. 321, 

p. 413 ; Reg, v. Sambhu Raghu (1876), at p. 331, Eanade, J., says that the 

1 Bom. 347,; Emperor v. Ganga (Bai) prohibition only extended to the three 

1 . (1016k J$ Bom, L. E. 56. superior castes. 

J 14 See Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 

,' ' 3rd ed., p. 106. 



38 



INTERMAREIAGE, 



[CHAP. i. 



The marriage of a younger brother before an elder brother, 1 or of a 
younger sister before an elder sister, 2 was prohibited. 

For other instances, see Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 3rd ed,, pp. 
54, 55 ; Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law," 2nd ed,, pp, 85, 86, 



Restrictions 
on inter- 
marriage. 



Identity of 
caste* 



Subdivisions 
of caste. 



WHO MAY INTBRMAKRY. 

The following rules 3 as to identity of caste, exogamy, and 
prohibited degrees have been deduced from texts of the sagos 
by Baghunandana, 4 who is said to be the highest authority in 
Bengal in all matters excepting inheritance, 5 and are reiterated 
by Kamalakara Bhatta in the Nirnaya Sindhuf -which is said 
to be of authority in the Benares school, 7 in the Bombay 
Presidency, 8 and in Southern India. 9 

1. Intermarriage between persons not belonging to the same 
primary caste is void, 10 

This rule only prevents intermarriage between the four 
primary castes. 1 1 It does not prevent marriage between persons 
belonging to different subdivisions of the same primary caste. 12 



1 Banerjee's "Law of Marriage,*' 
3rd ed., p. 42 ; Bhattacharya (" Hindu 
Law," 2nd ed., p. 83) says that this 
rule is imperative. 

a Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., p. 56. 

3 For a discussion of those rubs, 
see Sarkar's " Hindu Law,'* 3rd ed., 
pp. 57-60. 

4 In his " Udvahatattwa." 

6 Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law," 
2nd ed., p. 36. 

6 Sarkar's " Hindu Law," 3rd ed , 
p. 92. 

7 Ibid., Bhattacharya's " Hindu 
Law," 2nd ed., p. 37. 

s MandlikWyavaharaMayukha," 
Introduction, p. 73 ; Bhattacharya's 
" Hindu Law," 2nd ed., p. 37. 

8 Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law," 
2nd ed., p. 37. 

10 Padam Kuvwri v. Swraj Kumari 
(1906), 28 All. 458 ; Melaram Nudial 
v. Thanooram Bamun (1868), 9 W. 
E. 0. R. 552 ; Lakshmi v. Kaliansing 
(1900X 2 Bom. L. B. 128; Bhatta- 
charyate "Hindu Law," 2nd ed., 
p. 85; Steele, pp. 26, 29, 30 ; Cole- 
brooked "Digest," vol. iii. p. HI ; 
"VyayasthaDarpana," 656; Strange's 
"Hindu Law," vol. i. p. 40; "Mit^k- 



shara," chap. i. s. 11, para. 2, and 
note. See Earn Lai Shoolsool v. AkJioy , 
Charan Hitter (1903), 7 C. W. N. 619. 
In that ease the judges assumed that 
Vaidyas were Vaisyas. As to the posi- 
tion of Vaidyas, see Bhattacharya's 
" Hindu Castes and Sects," pp. 159- 
171 ; Risley's "Tribes and Castes of 
Bengal," vol. i. pp. 46-50. 

11 Ante, pp. 22, 23. 

12 Inderun Valungypooly Taver v. 
Mamasawmy Pandia Palaver (1869), 

13 M. I. A. 141, at p. 158 ; 3 B. L. 
R. P. C. 1, at p. 4; 12 W. R. P. C. 
41, at pp. 42, 43. See S. C. in Court 
below; Pandaiya Telaver v. Pub 
Telaver (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 478, at 
p 483 ; Upoma KucJiain v. Bholaram 
Dhubi (1888), 15 Calc. 708 ; MaJian- 
tawa v. Gangawa (1909), 33 Bom. 693 ; 
11 Bom. L. R. 822. See Ramamam 
Ammal v. Kulanthai Natchear (1871) ; 

14 M. I. A. 346; 1 W. R. C. R. 1 ; 
Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," 2nd 
ed., p. 85 ; Sarkar's " Hindu Law," 
3rd ed., p. 103. A contrary view was 
expressed in Melaram Nudial v. 
Thanooram Bamun (1868), 9 W. R. 
C. R. 552, and by Hitter, J., in 
Narain Dhara v. EaJclial Gain (1875), 
1 Calc. 1, at p. 4; 23 W. R. C, B 



CHAP. I,] INTERHABBIAGE. 89 

In the case of the marriage of an illegitimate person, who, strictly Marriage o! 
speaking, belongs to no caste, he or she must be treated as belonging to illegitimate 
the caste the members of which have recognized him or her as a caste I* 5180118 ' 
fellow. 1 

A marriage between a Hindu and a Christian woman who had become 
a Hindu has been upheld, 2 

The question as to the effect of a marriage between a Hindu and a Mixed 
non-Hindu is not an easy one. Such a marriage when celebrated in England m arnages. 
according to English forms may be effectual according to English law> 3 but 
in India the position is different. If the marriage be in accordance with 
the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 4 it would be valid. 
The Hindu law did not contemplate any such marriages, and would not 
recognize them. If the marriage were attempted to be performed according 
to Hindu rites and ceremonies, it would apparently have no effeci, but if 
it were performed according to other rites (e.g. Brahmo rites) the Court * 
would apparently give effect to it. The inclination would be to support 
marriages, to which there could be no moral objection, to prevent children 
being rendered illegitimate, and to repudiate objections which however 
suited to ancient society have no application to modern times, when many 
people of divers communities and religions are to be found in India. The 
Court might well say that as there was no Hindu law dealing expressly 
with the subject, the case would be dealt with by principle of equity and 
good conscience. Legislation on this subject is much needed. 

Marriages between members of different castes may be recognized by Custom. 
local custom. 5 

2, A member of one of the twice-born classes cannot marry Exogamy, 
the daughter of an agnate, i.e. of a person belonging to the same 
gotra,* or primitive stock, as himself, 7 

334, at p. 335. It is said that in mani (1909), 33 Mad. 342. 
Bengal the practice is in accordance 3 CUtti v. Chetti, [1909] P. D. 67. 
with Mittcr, J.'s, view in the above * Act XV. of 1872. 
case (Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 5 See Ram Lai ShooTcool v. Alclioy 

3rd cd., p. 75). As to Bombay, see Charon Hitter (1903), 7 C. W. N. 

Stecle, pp. 29, 30. As to intermarriage 619. As to this case, see 7 C. W. N. 

between different soots of Lingayets, pp. ccxxxvii. and ccxxxviii. 
see Fakirgauda v. Gangi (1896), 22 6 Lit. cow-pen, i.e. a place in which 

Bom. 277. As to a family custom cows were kept or protected from 

allowing intermarriage between sub- plundering attacks,* Bhattacharya'a 

castes, see Nugendwr Narain (Rajah) " Law of the Joint Family," p. 113. 

v. Rugfoomfo No/rain Dey, W. R. For a discussion as to the origin of the 

1864, 0. E. 20, at p. 23. term, see Max Muller's " Chips from 

i In ' the matter of Ramkumari a German Workshop," vol. ii, p. 28 ; 

(1891), 18 Calo. 264; Emperor v. Banerjee's "Law of Marriage,'' 3rd 

Madan Gopal (1912), 34 All. 589. As ed., pp. 56, 57 ; Sarkar's Hindu 

to the daughter of a bastard, see In- Law," 3rd ed., p. 76. 
derun Valungypooly Taver v. Rama- * "Mann," chap, in. para. 5 ; 

sawmyPa^aTataver(im),13*Ll Steele, p. 160 ; Cobbrooko s "Di- 

A. 141 s 3B.L.B.P.C.1; 12W.B. ge*fc," vol. m. p. 329; Banerjee * 

P C. 41 ; S. C. in Court below ; Pan- " Law of Marriage, 3rd ed., pp. 56, 

- &* Wto* v - Puu Telaver (im) > 57 ; Bhattachar * s H ^ u Law / 

, 1 &*i B? a 478. 2nd ed., p. 88 ; Sircar's " Vyavastha 

Darpana," 2nd e<i, |>. G57, 



PROHIBITED DEGREES. 



[CHAP, I. 



Prohibited 
degrees of 
relationship. 

Bescendants 
of father and 
paternal 
ancestors. 



This prevents a marriage between persons who are connected with a 
common ancestor entirely through males. 

In this connection the expression gotra " means a family descended 
from one of the several patriarchs, who are, according to some, twenty- 
four, and according to others, forty-two in number." 

There seems to be no certainty as to what are the gotras at the present 
day. Apparently there are eight primitive gotras descended from the 
seven Bishis, Viswamitra, Jamadagni, Bharadwaja, Gotama, Attri, 
Vasistha, Kasyapa, together with Agastya. The remaining gotras are 
possibly subdivisions of these eight, but are not all identifiable with 
them. 1 

6( The theory of the gotra, as latterly described by Brahmanic writers, 
denies that either a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya, or a Sudra has a right to 
say that he belongs to a special gotra in the proper sense of the term," 8 
Kshatriyas and Vaisyas have adopted the gotras of the spiritual guides 
or family priests of their remote progenitors. 3 It is also said that a man 
is prohibited from marrying a girl belonging to a gotra having the same 
pravaras or principal sages as hii own, 4 

8. A Hindu may not marry 5 

(a) A female descendant as far as the seventh 6 degree from 

his father or from one of his father's six ancestors in 

the male line 7 

Sastri G. C. Sarkar, in his " Law of Adoption," 8 says, " In fact the 
prohibited degrees for marriage are considered by the Sanskrit writers 
to constitute sapindas for the purpose of marriage, and they are different 
according to different sages. For instance, Vasishta declares that a man 
may marry a girl who is fftli and seventh on the mother's and father's 
sides respectively, whilst Paithinasi says that a damsel may be espoused 
who is beyond the third on the mother's and fifth on the father's side. 9 



1 See Bhattacharya's " Law of the 
Joint Family," pp. 11 1-1 13 f Iswar 
Chandra Vidyasagur's " Widow Mar- 
riage," p. 193. 

2 Bhattacharya's " Law of the 
Joint Family," p. 111. 

* Ibid. ; Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 57; "Dattaka 
Mimansa," chap. ii. para. 76. 

4 Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., p. 56, note 4 ; Colebrooke's 
"Digest," vol. iii. p. 39; Bhatta- 
charya's " Hindu Law," 2nd ed , p. 
88. See Ramchandra v, Gopal (1908), 
32 Bom. 619, at p. 626 ; 10 Bom. 
L. R. 948. 

* See MinaMti v. Ramanadha 
(1887), 11 Mad. 49, at p. 53. These 
rales are taken from Banerjee's " Law 
of Marriage," 3rd ed., pp. 59-62. In 
Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," 2nd 
ed., p. 93, diagrams illustrating these 



rules will be found. 

6 In the calculation of prohibited 
degrees Hindu lawyers count both of 
the persons whose relationship is 
under consideration. So in this case, 
according to the English mode of 
calculation, the prohibition would end 
at the sixth degree. See post, p. 43, 
note 4. 

7 " Udvahatattwa," Raghunanda- 
na's "Institutes," vol. ii. p. 65, referred 
to in Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., p. 62. See Vyaa Chimanlal 
v. 7^05 Mamchandra (1899), 24 Bom. 
473; 4 Bom. L. B. 163. As to 
marriage with a half-sister's daughter, 
see Karumbdhi Ganesa Ratnamaiyar 
v. Gopala Ratnctmaiyar (1880), 7 I. A. 
173, at p. 177 ; 2 Mad. 270, at p. 279. 

8 P. 386. 

8 " Mitakshara," chap. i. para. 53. 



CHAP, I.] PROHIBITED DECREES, 41 

But soven degrees on both sides appears to be prohibited by Manu, for lie 
declares that a man must not marry a girl who is sapinda to his mother, 1 
and lays down generally in another place that sapinda relationship ceases 
with the seventh ancestor." 2 

(6) A female descendant as far as the seventh degree from Descendants 
his father's bandhus 3 or from one of their six ancestors, 
through whom such female is related to him. 4 

These six ancestors would be the bandhu's mother, mother's father, 
mother's father's father, mother's father's father's father, mother's father's* 
father's father's father, and mother's father's father's father's father's 
father. It does not include mother's mother, &c., as " a line of female 
ancestors is not regarded ae a line in the Hindu law." 5 

(c) A female descendant as far as the fifth degree from his Descendants 

maternal grandfather or from one of his maternal grandfather, 
grandfather's four ancestors in the male line. 6 

In the Presidency of Madras marriage with the daughter of a maternal 
uncle or of a paternal aunt is recognized by custom, 7 

According to some authorities a man cannot marry the daughter of 
an agnate q his maternal grandfather. 8 

(d) A female descendant as far as the fifth 9 degree from his Descendants ^ 

mother's bandhu, lQ or from one of their four ancestors 
through whom such female is related to him. 11 ancestors. 

Where the bandhu in question is the son of the mother's maternal or 
paternal aunt, these four ancestors would be the bandhu's mother, mother's 
father, mother's father's father, and mother's father's father's father, and 
where the landhu is the son of the mother's maternal uncle the four 
ancestors would be the father, father's father, father's father's father, 
and father's father's father's father. 12 

1 Chap. iii. para. 5. 8 " Manu," chap. iii. para. 5. There 

2 Chap. v. para. 60. seems to be a difference of opinion 
8 A bandlw is a, sapinda, related with regard to this not ; sea Bhatta- 

through a female. chaiya's " Hindu Law," 2nd ed., 

* " XJdvahatattwa," Raghunanda- pp. 91, 92; Sircar's " Vyavastha 

na*8 "Institutes," vol. ii. p. 65, referred Darpana," 2nd ed., p. 658. 

to in Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 9 See ante, p. 40. 

riage," 3rd ed , p. 62. 10 See above, note 3. This includes 

8 Banorjee's " Law of Marriage," the sons of his mother's maternal 

3rd od , p. 63. aunt, the sons of his mother's paternal 

6 "XJdvahatattwa," Raghunanda- aunt, and the sons of his mother's 
na's " Institutes," vol. ii. p. 65, referred maternal uncle. 

to in G. D. Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 1X " Udvahatattwa," Raghunanda- 

riage," 3rd ed., p. 63. na's "Institutes," vol. ii. p. 65, referred 

7 Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. ii. to in Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 
p.' Z05. See note by Mr. Anand 3rd ed., p. 63. 

Ofe^ri% ** Calcutta Wecfcty Notes," 12 Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 
vol vil pp. te$ ap, ievfii . 3rd ed,, p. 63. 



42 



PROHIBITED DEGREES. 



[CHAP. I. 



Exceptions. In spite of the above rales, a man may marry a girl who is 
removed by three gotras l from him, although she be related 
within the above degrees. 2 

" The three gotras in the case of the descendants of a bandJm are always 
to be counted from his (the bandhu's) own gotra. So also in the case of 
the descendants of the ancestors of a oandhu, who is the father's or the 
mother's maternal uncle's son, they are to be counted from the bandhu's 
own gotra. But in the case of the descendants of the ancestors of each 
pf the other bandhus, the gotras are to be counted from his (the landhtfs) 
maternal grandfather's gotra" 3 

Sir G. D. Banerjee * gives the following illustration of the above rule : 
" Suppose the paternal great-grandfather o& the bridegroom to be of 
the Sandilya, gotra ; his daughter (by transfer of marriage) to be of the 
Kasyapa gotra; her daughter of the Vatsya gotra; and the daughter's 
daughter to be of the Bharadwaja gotra; the maiden daughter of this 
last, being of the Bharadwaja gotra, and being beyond three gotras, viz. 
the Sandilya, Kasyapa, and Vatsya, is eligible for marriage though within 
the prohibited degrees." 

In practice these rules are, apparently, among all classes, 
not taken to exclude a sapinda girl beyond the fifth degree on 
the father's side, and the third degree on the mother's side, 5 
but in strictness this relaxation of the rule is said to be limited 
to the Kshatriyas in all the forms of marriage, and to the 
other classes only in the Asura, Q or other inferior forms of 
marriage. 7 



Origin of 
rules. 



The above rules are enunciated by Sir G. D. Banerjee in his " Law of 
Marriage and Stridhan." They are based upon the interpretation put by 
Kaghunandana upon the text of Manu, As so interpreted, the text 
prohibits a man from marrying a girl who is a sapinda B of his father or 
of his maternal grandfather. 9 This sapinda relationship ceases after the 
fifth or seventh degree from the mother and father respectively. 10 Yajna- 
Bifferenee be- valkya 1X also requires that a man should not marry his sapinda. This 
tween schools. ru j e ig oommon to all schools, but there is a diversity between the view 



1 I.e. three females have intervened 
in the line between the man and the 
girl in question, 

[ 2 Ragunandana's" Institutes," vol. 
p. 64, referred to in G. B. Banor- 
>'s "Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., 

^ G. B. Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 
riage/' 3rd ed,, p. 64. 



s Bkattaoharya's " Hindu Law," 
2nd ed,, p. 91, see ante, pp. 40, 41. 



6 Post, p. 55. 

7 G. B. Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., pp. 64, 65 ; Sircar's 
" Vyavastha Barpana," 2nd ed., pp. 
663, 664. 

8 " Manu," chap. iii. para. 5. 

9 See Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law, 1 * 
2nd ed., p. 88. 

10 Yama, cited in the " Udvahatat- 
twa," p. 7, referred to in Bhattachar- 
ya's " Hindu Law," 2n4 ed., p. 88. 

11 I, 52, 



CHAP. I,] PROHIBITED DEGREES 43 

entertained by the Mitakshara school l and that entertained by the Bengal 
school 2 as to the meaning of srtpinda, relationship. 

According to the Mitakshara 3 school a man cannot marry a girl if, Mitakshara. 
their common ancestor being traced through his or her father, such common sc hoolt 
ancestor is not beyond the seventh 4 in the lino of ascent from him or 
her, or, their common ancestor being traced through their mothers, such 
common ancestor is not beyond the fifth in the line of ascent from him 
or her. 

Dr. J, N. Bliattacharya says, 5 " I must note also the faet that those 
who are governed by the Mitakwhara school practically exclude, for pur- 
pose* of marriages only the four lines 6 that are considered ineligible by 
the .Bengal school," 

As to local and family customs permitting intermarriage within the Custom, 
prohibited degrees, see Mayno's " Hindu Law," 8th ed,, pp. 105, 100 ; 
Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law," 2nd ed,, pp. 98, 99. 

A man cannot marry liiB stopmothor's brother's daughter, stepmother's 

FUliltlOIUji 

or claughtor'n danghtor, 7 

The prohibition is based on a text of Htimanlu, 8 which specific** these 
persons According lo a reading o the text-, the Western Hehoolw exclude 
alwo tho Btepmother'H iHtor and their daughters, and Borne persona hold 
thai sapinda relationHhip in tho oano of tho Blepmothor its tho same aa foi 
the oao of tho natural mother up to tho fifth ctagroo.* 

Sastri d 0, Sarkar treats this rule of exclusion of certain of tho 
stopmothor'8 relations as being one of merely moral obligation, and w 
having no legal force* 10 

* According to tho u Mitakflhara '* Law," 2nd od., p. 9L 

all the doHOotKlautf of a common an- 8 &*o Bhattacharya's <e Hindu Law, 

cciHtor arc Mpindft*, except that after 2nd eel., p. 90. 
tho fifth tuwM'Hlor on tho mothor'rt 4 In thin computation both tho 

Hide, and after tho wwnth on tho common ancestor and tho person in 

fathor'B flido, tho relationship oenwB. question must bo taken into eon- 

Bhattacharya'fl " Hindu Law," 2nd federation. S<>e ante, p. 40, note 0, 
c< | p, m> * " Hindu Law," 2nd ed., p. 91. 

* According to tho Bengal school 6 Tho fimt of thoso linos include 
tho axpresBion moans connootod by tho girls belonging to the same gotra 
offering of tho funeral cako, but " For (afc, pp. 39, 40). Tho second inoludos 
ttutpos0 rotating to marriage, Baghu- girls belonging to th<& gotra of tho 
itaad&ttV' who is tho chief authority maternal grandfather of tho bride- 
in tflfct school on tho subject of mar- groom (ante, p. 41). Tho two other 
ri&go, ** has not given any importances linow arc comprised in tho above rules, 
to the definition of tho term '0- 7 ** Udvahatattwa," Eaghunanda- 
jrfntfa,' Hc hafl relied upon oxprom na's "Institutes," vol. ii. p. 60, re- 
teats to exclude girln within tho ferrcd to in G, B. Banorjeo a Law 
Hovcmtk degree on tho fathor*s ftide, of Marriage," 3rd od., p. <t2. 

and tho fifth degree on that of tho 8 Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law, 

mother* There aw, however, pas* 2nd od, p, 05. Sumantu wan tho 

amm im tho * UdvahataUwa/ in author of ono o tho Kmritis. 
wfrfoh tho term 'Sapinto* 'to taken * Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law, 1 

to JiKtlttdo In Its denotation all agnatoH 2nd od. p. 95. 
and .jjogwut^ wiftin tho fc*orwi<l 10 " Hindu Law," 3rd od,, p. 92* 
limit*," ^il40k^ v 8 " Hindu 



AFFINITY, ADOPTED 



[CHAP, i, 



other rules of 
restriction. 



Affinity. 



Adopted son. 



There aro other rules of restriction on intermarriage, 
are nQW oong ^ ere( j to be of mere moral obligation, and 
which are not universally observed, 

The paternal uncle's wife's sister, and her daughter, and the wife's 
sister's daughter were excluded, * J n all of these cases the marriage 19 
valid in law. 2 

In former times a man could not marry the daughter of his spiritual 
guide or pupil, 3 or a girl bearing his mother's mine, 4 or a girl older than 
him in age, 5 

Relationship by marriage does not per se operate as an 
impediment to a marriage. Thus a man can marry any relation 
of his wife whom he could have validly married if he was then 
marrying for the first time. 9 

A son adopted according to the Dattaka form 7 cannot 
marry any one of the persons whom he would have been pro- 
hibited from, marrying if he had remained in his natural family. 8 
It is unsettled 9 whether he is also prohibited from marrying 
any one of the gills, whom he could not have married, had ho 
been a natural-born son of his adoptive father, 10 or whether he 
is only prohibited from marrying a girl who belongs to the golra 



1 Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law," 
2nd ed., p. 95. 

2 See BanerjeVs " Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed , p. 67 ; Bhattacharya's 
"Hindu Law," 2nded, p. 95; Sarkar's 
" Hindu Law," 3rd ed., p. 92. As to 
wife's sister's daughter, see post, 
note 6. 

s See Banerjee's "Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 69; "Manu," 
chap. ii. para. 171 ; " Vyavastha 
Parpana," p. 665, note. Bhattacharya 
(" Hindu Law," 2nd ed., p. 96) treats 
this prohibition as still effectual, but 
a different view is adopted in Baner- 
jee's "Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., 
p. 69, and in Sarkar's " Hindu Law," 
3rd ed., p. 92 , m The reason for the rule 
seems to have ceased, as Vedic in- 
stmction is now usually of merely 
npmujal duration. 

'Udvahatattwa," referred to in 
" Law of Marriage," 3rd 
ed,, p. 70. 

Yajmmlkya," i. 52. In prac- 
this rale is never departed from ; 



Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 3rd 
ed., p. 70 ; Stale, 161. 

6 See Ragaven&ra Rau v. Jayaram 
Rau (1897), 20 Mad. 283, where it 
was held that a marriage between a 
Hindu and the daughter of his wife's 
sister is valid. Banerjee's "Law of 
Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 67; G. C, 
Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 319. 

7 Post, chap. iii. 

8 Narasammal v. BalaramacTiarlu 
(1863), 1 Mad. H. 0. 420, at p. 426; 
Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 3rd 
ed., p. 65; G. 0. Sarkar's "Law 
of Adoption," p. 387; Bhattacharya's 
" Hindu Law," 2nd ed., pp. 95, 96 ; 
"Dattaka Chandrika," s. 4, paras. 
7-9; "Dattaka Mimansa," s. 0, 
para. 39; "Vyavahara Mayukha," 
chap. iv. s. 5, para, 30. 

Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law/ 9 
2nd ed., pp. 95, 96. 

10 This view is taken in Banorjeo's 
" Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 65, 
following the "Dattaka Chandrika," 
s, 4, paras. 7-9. 



CHAP. I.] KEMA&BIAGE OF WIDOW. 45 

of his adoptive father, or is within three degrees of descent from 
the adoptive father and his two paternal ancestors, 1 

The latter view has been accepted by Nanda Pandita in the " Dattaka 
Mimansa," 2 and it is therefore to be supposed that it would be acceptable 
to the Benares, Maharashtra and Mithila schools. 3 

Where an adoption hatf been made by a widow, or by a 
wife in conjunction with her husband, an adopted son is pro- 
hibited from marrying a girl whom he could not have married 
had he been a legitimate son of his adoptive mother. 4 

Whether he is prohibited from marrying in the family of a wife of his 
adoptive father, who has not joined in the adoption, seems unsettled. 5 

As the Hindu law did not recognize the remarriage of Reman iago 

widows* 

widows, there are necessarily no rules providing for the case. 

It would seem that a widow cannot marry a person whose relation- 
ship to her is such that she could not have married him if she had never 
been married. It is said 6 that in order to ascertain what relatives of 
her first husband are forbidden to her in marriage reference should be made 
to the rules as to penance and appointment (niyoga), and to some special 
texts which pronounce certain relations as equal to mothers. 

The rules in " Manu " as to penance would exclude a man from marry- 
ing the widow of his father, 7 of his son, 8 and of his guru. 9 

The application of the ancient rules of niyoga, would apparently prevent 
a man from marrying the widow of his paternal or maternal grandfather, 
his father's widow, his father's or mother's sister, the widow of his paternal 
or maternal uncle, his father-in-law's widow, his sister or his daughter, 
his son's widow or daughter, or the widow of his guru. 

Vrihaspati 1]L pronounces as equal to mothers, the mother's sister, the 
paternal and maternal uncle's wife, the father's sister, the mother-in-law 
and the wife of an elder brother. 

Among the Jats of the Province of Agra, marriage between a widow Jats 
and her husband's brother is allowed. 12 

1 Ihia view is taken in G. C, Bar- Mardan Singh (1886), 8 All. 143, the 

kar's "Law of Adoption," p. 387, fol- Court held that, in tho absence of a 

lowing the " Dattaka Mimansa," B. 4, special custom, tho marriage of a 

paras, 32-38. Hindu with his cousin's widow was 

8. vl paras. 32-38 ; see " Vya- valid. 

vahara Mayukha," chap. iv. s. 5, 7 "Manu," chap, xi paras, 05, 

para. 30. 104-107. 

Ante, pp. 17, 19, 20. 8 ft&* chap, XL para. 59. 

* Seo Baxierjce'8 " Law of Mar- Ibid., chap. xi. paras. 49, 252. 
riago," 3rd ed,, pp. 65, 66. * See 0. 0. Sarkar's " Law of 

* Ibid, i S. C. Sircar's " Vyavastha Adoption," pp. 321, 322. 
Darpana," 2nd ed., p. 890 ; " Dattaka u Cited in " Dayabhaga," chap. IT, 
Minwnsa," a. 6, paras. 50-63. s. 3, para. 31. 

* See Bha^fcaoJiArya'fi "HinduLaw," ia Poorunmul v. Toolsee Ram (1868), 
Sad <s<l, P 97* la LacJw&n Kutor v. 3 Agra. 350, 



46 



OIFT IN MARRIAGE. 



[CHAP, i. 



Void 

marriagej 



A marriage made within the prohibited degrees is void, 1 

The woman is entitled to receive maintenance from the man, 8 
The Hindu law did not permit a woman whose marriage was void on 
account of identity of gotra, or as being within the prohibited degrees, 
to marry again, even if the marriage was not consummated. 3 Where 
the marriage was void on account of difference of caste, the Hindu law, 
according to some authorities, allowed the woman to remarry if the error 
was discovered before the ceremony of garbJiadcmaS but not otherwise. 5 
The case is unlikely to occur, but if it did, the Courts might decline to 
consider that a void marriage is any impediment to a subsequent fnarriage. 6 



Consent of 
guardian. 



WHO MAY GIVE IN MAKRIAGE, 

The gift of a female minor in marriage must be by, or with 
the consent of, her father or other guardian in marriage. Tho 
consent of the guardian is also necessary in the case of the 
marriage of a male minor, 7 

Where there is a gift by or with the consent of a legal 
guardian, and the marriage rite is duly solemnized, and whero 
the marriage of a male minor takes place with the consent of 
such guardian, the marriage is irrevocable, 8 

For the purposes of marriage the age of majority, according to the 
Bengal school, is the end of the fifteenth year, 8 and according to the 



1 Kullaka Bhatta's commentary 
on "Maun," chap. iii. paras. 5, 11 ; 
Bhattacharya's M Hindu Law," 2nd 
cd., p. 97; Banerjee's "Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 66. 

2 Texts cited in Bhattacharya's 
" Hindu Law," 2nd od., p. 97 ; Cole- 
brooked "Digest," vol. iii. p. 320; 
Ramckandm v. Oopal (1908), 32 Bom. 
019; 10 Bom. L. R. 948. 

3 See Banerjeo's "Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 201 ; Bhattaeharya's 
" Hindu Law," 2nd ed., p. 98 ; Colo- 
brooko'a Digest," vol. ii. p. 477; 
Ramclwvndm v. Oopal (1908), 32 Bom. 
619, at p. 628 ; 10 Bom. L. R. 948. 

4 A ceremony performed on the 
first appearance of the menses, and 
popularly called the second marriage. 

5 Bancrjce's "Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., p. 201 ; Steele, 29, 30, 16(5. 

* Se$ Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 
iiag^> Sj^ed., p. 191. Aunjom Dasi 
v. PrattdJ Ofanfo* Qhow (1870), 6 
B. L. R. 24% t Bp, 253, 264; 14 



W. B, 0. R. 403, at p. 405. If this 
view be not accepted, then, on the 
death of the husband, the woman 
could take advantage of the Hindu 
Widow's Remarriage Act (XV. of 
1856, ante, p. 37), 

7 Nundlal Bhugwandas v. Tapeedaa 
(1809), 1 Borr. 14; 1 Mori. 287; 
Steele, p. 26. 

8 VenJcatacharyulu v. Rangacka- 
ryulu (1890), 14 Mad. 316, at p. 320. 
See Kateemm Dokanee v. Gendhenee 
(Mussamut) (1875), 23 W. R. C. R. 178. 

9 Lachman Das v.Rujpchand (1831), 
5 Ben. Scl. Rep., 115, 2nd ed., 136; 
Gaily Churn Mullick v. Bhuggobutty 
Churn Mullich (1872), 10 B. L. R 
231 ; 19 W. R. 0. R. 110 ; Mon$oor 
Ali v. Ramdyal (1865), 3 W. R. C. R. 
50; Deobomoyee Dossee v. Juggessur 
Hati (1864), 1 W. R. 0. R. 75; 
Luckheenarain Mujmodar v. Mud- 
dhosodun, Ben. S. D. A., 1853, p. 505 ; 
Sheebsunfar Doss v, Uluck Chund&r 
Aych, Bon. S, D. A., 1859, p. 885- 



CHAP. I.] 



DEVOLUTION OF RIGHT. 



47 



schools of law based on the Mitakshara, the end of the sixteenth year. 1 
The age of majority for the purpose of marriage is not affected by the 
Indian Majority Act. 3 

The right, and duty, of giving a boy 3 or a girl in marriage Devolution of 

it 1 1 n it *A guardianship 

devolves upon the following persons in succession * ; f n marriage; 

1. The father,* 

2. The paternal grandfather, 

3. The brother.^ 

4. Other paternal relations up to the tenth degree of affinity 7 
in order of proximity. 

According to the Mitakshara school, the right then devolves Right of 
upon the mother, and, failing her, upon the maternal grand- 
father, maternal uncle, and other maternal relations in order 
of proximity. According to the Bengal school, the right of the 
mother is postponed to that of the maternal grandfather and 
maternal uncle, 8 

Where a relative, other than the father, seeks to exercise a right to 
give in marriage, it is his duty to consult the mother, and if her objection 
be not unreasonable, to allow it. 9 



i Strange's "Hindu Law," vol. i. 
p. 72 ; vol. ii. pp. 76, 77, 80 ; Mac- 
naghten's "Hindu Law," vol. i. 
chap. vii. (ed. 129), p. 103* 

a Act IX. of 1875, s. 2, 

Sec Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 
vol ii. p. 204. 

* Stiango's "Hindu Law," vol. i, 
p. 36; vol. h, p. 28; Macnaghten's 
" Hindu Law," vol. 11, p. 204 ; " Vya- 
vastha Darpana," 2nd od., p. 651 ; 
West and Btihler, 3rd ed., pp. 272, 
673. Sco Ram Bunsee Koonwaree 
(Maharanee) v. Soobh Koonwaree 
(MaJutranee) (1867), 7 W, B. 0. B. 
321, at p. 323 ; 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 
193; Shridhar v. Hiralcd Vtihal 
(1887), 12 Bom. 480, at p. 484. It 
has been held in Madras (Xlanga- 
naikimmal v. Ramanuja Aiyangar 
(1911), 35 Mad. 728) that this refers 
only to tho ceremonial act of giving, 
and not to tho right of disposing, of 
tho child in marriage, and that tho 
mother was entitled to give her 
daughter in marriage ; but in that caso 
tho marriage had boon carried out 
(so post, p. 50). See Ramkore (Bai) v. 
Jammfa* Mukhand (1912), 37 Bom, 
L. B. 760. 



v. Janardhan Vasudev (1886), 12 Bom. 
110, at p. 118 ; Golamee Gopee Ghoae 
v. Juggessur Ghose (1865), 3 W. B. 
0. B. 193 ; 38 x p. Jankypersaud 
Agurwallah (1859), 2 Boul. 28, 114 ; 
Nundlal Bhugwandass v. Tapecdass 
(1809), 1 Borr. 14 ; 1 Mori. 287. 

Ex p. Janlcypersaud AgurwallaJi 
(1859), 2 Boul. 28, 114. Strange's 
" Hindu Law," vol. ii. p. 30 ; Mac- 
naghten's "Hindu Law," vol. ii. 
p. 204. 

7 As to the right of the paternal 
uncle, see Brindabun Chandra Kur- 
mokar v. CKun&ra KurmoJcar (1885), 
12 Calc, 140, at p. 142 ; Stoidhar v. 
Hiralal Vtthal (1887), 12 Bom. 480, 
at p. 484. 

r 8 Banorjee's "Law of Marriage, 1 
3rd ed., p. 44; Bhattacharya's 
"Hindu Law," 2nd cd., p. 116; 
"Vyavastha barpana," 2nd ed., p. 
651 ; Strango's " Hindu Law," vol. 
ii. p. 28 ; Macnaghten's " Hindu 
Law," vol. ii. p. 28. See "Narada 
Smriti," chap. xii. paras. 20, 21. As 
to the right of the maternal uncle, see 
Kastun v. Panna Lai (1916), 38 AIL 
520. 

* See $. Namasevayam PilUy v. 
Amammai Ummal (1869), 4 Mad. 



48 



LOSS OF EIGHT. 



[CHAP, i. 



Stepmother. 

Consent of 
ward. 



Delegation of 
right. 



A stepmother has no right to give in marriage. 1 

A minor cannot be married or given in marriage against 
his or her will, 

Although it would rarely happen that a Hindu girl would be consulted 
as to the choice of a bridegroom, and although the form of a Hindu marriage 
contemplates a gift of the girl by her father or other guardian rather than 
a contract between the parties to the marriage, a bridegroom cannot be 
forced upon an tmwilling bride. 2 The gift is made merely in discharge 
of the duty of the guardian, and not in exercise of any right of property 
in the girl. 3 

A father can, 4 expressly or by implication, 5 delegate his 
authority to another person. 

It is submitted that no other guardian can delegate his right, except, 
perhaps, to a person on whom the right might eventually devolve, as in 
the case of Ram Bunsee Koowwaree (Maharanee) v. Soobh Koonuxtree 
(Maharanee),* where the nearest male kinsman assented to the paternal 
grandmother giving the girl in marriage. 

toss of right, A father or other guardian loses his right to give in marriage 
when he has neglected to exercise the right for a long time, or 
has in other ways waived the right. 7 

The conviction of the father does not necessarily destroy his right 
to give his daughter in marriage. 8 

A father or other guardian in marriage Can enforce his 
right by suing for an injunction to prevent the marriage of 
his ward to a person of whom he does not approve, and the 



Remedy of 
guardian. 



H. C. 339 ; Ramkore (Bai) v.Jamnadas 
Mulchand (1912), 37 Bom. 18; 14 
Bom. L. B. 766. 

1 Sam Bunsee Koonwaree (Maha- 
ranee) v. Soobh Koonwaree (Maha- 
ranee) (1867), 7 W. B. C. B. 321 ; 
2 Ind. Jur. 193. 

2 See Shndhar v. Hiralal Vithal 
(1887), 12 Bom. 480, at p. 4861, 
Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. ii. p. 481. 

3 See Khushalchand Ldhhand v. 
Bai Mani (1886), 11 Bom. 247, at 
p. 255 

4 Golamee Gopee Ghose v. Juggesmr 
Ghose (1865), 3 W. B. C. B. 193. 

5 Golamee Gopee Ghose v. Juggessur 
Ghose (1865), 3 W. B. C. B. 193. 

6 (1867), 7 W. B. 0. B. 321 ; 2 
Ind. Jur. 193. 

7 See Kasturi v. Panna Lai (1916), 
38 All, 520; Khmftakhand Lakh&nd 



v. Bai Mani (1886), 11 Bom. 247; 
King v. Kistnama NaicJc (1814), 2 Str. 
N. C, 89 ; 1 Norton L. C. 1 ; Modhoo- 
soodun MooJserjee v. Jadub Chunder 
Banerjee (1865), 3 W. B. C. B. 194 ; 
Ghazi v. SuJcru (1897), 19 All. 515; 
Rulyat (Baee) v. Jeychund Kewul 
(1843), Bellasis, 43; 1 Mori. (N. S.) 
181. The fact that the father had 
given up worldly affairs, and had 
become a recluse would bo evidence 
that he had waived his rights of 
guardianship. 



van v. Janardhan Vasudev (1886), 12 
Bom. 110. 

8 See In the matter of Kashi Chun- 
der Sen (1881), 8 Calc. 266, S. a 
Bromhomoyee v. Kashi Chunder Sen, 
10 C. L. B. 91 ; KhmhaWmnd Lakhand 
v. Mani (Bai) (1886), 11 Bom. 247, 



OHAP. I.] CONTROL OF GTURDUN, 49 

Court will in a suitable case grant an injunction pendento HU to 
restrain such marriage, 1 

The order o the Court may bo subject to restrictions upon the exercise 
of the rights of the guardian. 3 

The Court will restrain a guardian from an improper exercise Control of 
of his authority ; but the Court will not, except in a case of cSurt! an y 
gross misconduct, interfere with the exercise of the discretion 
by a father. 3 

Where a guardian of the person or property of a minor has been Guardian 
appointed by a High Court, or by a Civil Court acting under the powers co u rj nted by 
contained in Act VIII. of 1890, the rights of such guardian are subject 
to the control of the Court appointing him, 4 and such Court can, it is sub- 
mitted, give all necessary directions with regard to the marriage of the 
ward, 5 at any rate where the person appointed or declared guardian would 
under Hindu law be the person entitled to give the minor in marriage. 

Where a minor is a ward of the Bengal Court of Wards, the leave of Ward of 
such Court must be obtained before the marriage. S^anS?* 1 * 

Whoever without the previous consent of the Courts of Wards abets Madras c * ourt 
the marriage of a minor ward of the Madras Court of Wards is liable on of Wards, 
conviction before a Court of Session to a fine not exceeding Rs. 2000, or 
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both. 7 

The Hindu law permits a girl to choose a husband for her- when minor 

, , , , , . , . . , , , . T irl m *y select 

self, if there be no available relation having a right to give her husband for 
in marriage, 8 or if her guardian in marriage has neglected to 
provide a husband for her for, at any rate, three years after 
she has attained a marriageable age. 9 

at p. 253. In Harendra Naih Chowd- Muhammadan Law," 4th ed., p. 198. 
hury v. Brinda Rani Dassi (1898), 2 6 Court of Wards Rules, s. viii. (e) 

C. W. N. 521, an injunction had been rule 5. The only penalty, ^appa- 

granted in a proceeding under the rently, for a disobedience of this rule 

Guardians and Wards Act VIII. of is that the Court might refuse to 

1890. authorize payment of the expenses of 

1 NandbMi Oanpatrav Dhairyavan the marriage out of the ward's funds. 
v. JanardJian Vasudev (1886), 12 7 Act I. (M. C.) of 1902, s. 67. 
Bom. 110. s "Narada," chap. xii. paras. 

2 See Skridhar v. EiraUl Vithal 20-22. " Yajnavalkya," i. 63. 
(1887), 12 Bom. 480. 9 Strange's "Hindu Law," i. 36. 

See SMdJw v. Hiralal V&hal " Manu," chap. ix. paras. 90, 91. 

(1887), 19 Bom. 480, at pp. 484, 485. Colobrooke's "Digest," vol. ii. p. 

4 See Act VIII. of 1890, s. 43. 387. According to " Gautama " 

See Act VIII. of 1890, s. 43 ; (xviii. 20-23), she need only wait 

Harendra Nath CTiowdhury v. Brinda three months. The marriageable age 

Jtont Dowi (X898), 2 C. W. N. 521 ; is said to be the completion of tho 

Trevelyan's "Law of Minors" (5th eigtoh year. Banerjee's "Law o! 

p, 248. Doubted in Diwali Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 51. See 

T. Moti Karson (1896), 22 Bom. " Manu," ix. 89. 

9^ at $. #H3 ? see Wilson's " Anglo- 

H.L. 



50 



ABSENCE OF CONSENT* 



[CHAP. i. 



Effect of 
absence of 
consent of 
guardian in 
marriage* 



In the former case the Hindu law required the girl to obtain permis- 
sion from the King before selecting a husband for herself, 1 Although the 
Law Courts now exercise the functions relating to minors, which were 
formerly exercised by the Sovereign in person, no such application to 
the Court seems to be contemplated by modern practice. 

The case would not be likely to occur, but effect would apparently be 
given to a marriage entered into by a girl who has no relations entitled to 
give her in marriage, provided the marriage be in other respects unexcep- 
tionable. 

In the case of the guardian neglecting to give the girl in marriage, 
the right of the guardian next in order would apparently accrue, 2 rather 
than that the girl should be able to select a husband for herself. 3 

It is said that, if a girl chooses a husband for herself, she cannot take 
with her any ornaments which have been given to her by her father, 
mother, or brothers. 4 

A marriage, otherwise legally contracted, and performed 
with the necessary ceremonies, is not rendered invalid by the 
mere absence of the consent of the guardian in marriage^ 

w There is no case ... in which the marriage of a Hindu girl effected 
without force and fraud by her relations has, after it has actually takeh 
place, been declared to be invalid for want of the consent of the legal 
guardian." * 

The rule would not, however, apparently prevent the Court setting aside 
a gift of a girl in marriage by a person having no pretence of authority. 7 

The circumstance that a marriage was contracted in disobedience of an 
order of a Civil Court would not render it invalid. 8 



Powers of 
Court. 



, The Courts have power to declare that a marriage, which has 
been entered into without the consent of the guardian, is on 
that account invalid, and would probably do so, at any rate if 
the marriage has not been consummated, in a case where the 
interests of the child had been disregarded, and where a person 



1 "Narada,"xii.22. " Yajnavalk- 
ya," i 63. 

2 See ante, p. 47. 

3 See Strange's " Hindu Law," 
i.36. 

* ** Manu,'* is. 92. 

B Ghazi v, Subru (1897), 19 All. 
515 ; Kasturi v. Chiranji Lai (1913), 
35 All 265; Mulchand Kuber v. 
Bhvdia (1897), 22 Bom. 812 ; Dwali 
(Bai) v. Moti Karson (1896), 22 Bom. 
509; Venka^hatyulu v. Rangacharyu- 
lu (1890), 14 Mad. 316 ; KhusJiakhand 
Idfahand v. Mani ($a%) (1886), 1J 



Bom. 247 ; Brindaoun Chandra Kur- 
mokar v. Chandra KurmoTcar (1885), 
12 Calo. 140 ; Modhoosoodun MooJcer- 
jee v. Jadub Chunder Banerjee (1865), 
3 W. E. Q R. 194 ; Rulyat (Base) v. 
Jeychund Kew$ (1843), Bellasis 43 j 
1 Mori. Dig. N. S. 181. 

6 Kaatari v. Ohiranji Lai (1913), 35 
All. 265, at p. 269. 

7 See Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 52. 

8 Diwali (Bai) v. Moti Karson 
(1896), 22 Bom. 509, 



CHAP. I.] EBMABBIAGE. 51 

having no pretence of authority had disposed of the child in 
marriage. 1 

Where the marriage has been induced by force or fraud, 2 
it would on that account be declared to be invalid, apart from 
any question as to the want of consent by the guardian. 3 

There would be great difficulties in setting aside a marriage which 
had been consummated, and in any case it would be difficult to obtain a 
bridegroom for a Hindu girl who had already gone through the form of 
marriage with another person. 

A minor 4 widow whose marriage has not been consummated Consent to ro. 
cannot remarry without the consent of her father, or, if she has ?Lto Wll 
no father, of her paternal grandfather ; or if she has no such 
grandfather, of her mother ; or, failing all these, of her elder 
brother ; or failing also brother, of her next male relative. 
Marriages made without such consent may be declared void by 
a Court of Law, but the consent is to be presumed until the 
contrary is proved, and no such marriage can be declared void 
after it has been consummated. 5 

In the case of a widow who is of full age, or whose marriage 
has been consummated, her own consent is sufficient consent 
to constitute her marriage valid. 6 

A father or other guardian cannot enforce an agreement to Agreement to 

, . . . i , . - r -i i * * ., , P a y nionoy to 

recompense him in consideration of the marriage of his child guardian, 
or ward, although the marriage be in the asura 7 form. 8 

1 See Aunjona, Dasi v. Prahlad Ghose (1870), 6 B. L. B. 243, at p. 
Chandra Ghosc (1870), 6 B. L. B. 243 ; 254 ; 14 W. B. 0. B. 403, at p. 405 ; 
14 W. B. C. B. 403 ; Banerjee's " Law Mulchand v. Bkudha (1897), 22 Bom. 
of Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 52. See, 812, at pp. 817, 818. 

however, MukJtand Kuber v. BJiudhia * Le. minor according to *' Hindu 

(1897), 22 Bom. 812 ; Khushakkand Law," 011*4 pp. 46, 47. 
Lakhand v. Mani (Bai) (1886), 11 B Hindu Widow ^marriage 4<fi 

Bom. 247. f ' (XV. of 1856), s. 7. This would no* 

2 Le, frau</ on the person marry- interfere with the jurisdiction of the 
ing, 6r being given in marnago. Court to set aside a marriage which 
Mere fraud on the guardian such as had been brought about by force or 
in Venkatacharyulu v. Rangacharyuht fraud exercised upon the widow (see 
(1890), 14 Mad. 316, whore the above). 

mother falsely stated that she had 6 Hindu Widow Bemarriage Act 

the father's permission, would not of (XV. of 1856), s. 7, 

itself invalidate the marriage ; see 7 Post, p. 55. 

Khwhakhand Lakhand v. Mani (Bat) * Gulabchund v. Fulbvi (1909), 33 

(1886), 11 Bom. 247. Bpm, 411 ; Baldeo Das Agarwalla v. 

"* JfafataflAaryufo v. Rangwhar- Mohmay* Persad ( 1911), 15 0. W. N. 

,(}.890), 14 Mad. 311, at p. 320 ; 447 ,- Venkaia Knstnayya (KaUva* 

$><*f y if r$ty$ Qlmfa vwnfa) v. Wntwi Nwayaw (Kritmp 



PAYMENTS, 



[QIUP. 



Payment to 
bridegroom. 



Marriage 
brocage con- 
tract. 

Marriage 
expenses* 



The Allahabad High Court holds that each we must bo judged by its 
circumstances. 1 

The father or other guardian can recover money which he has paid as 
the consideration for a marriage which has not taken place. 8 

There is no objection to a payment of money by the guardian 
of a girl to the proposed bridegroom in consideration of the 
marriage. 3 

A contract, whereby a person undertakes for reward to 
bring about a marriage, cannot be enforced. 4 

The property of a joint family governed by the Mitatshara 
school of law is liable for the reasonable 5 expenses of the 
marriages of the daughters of male members of such family, 6 
including the daughters of those who are excluded from in- 
heritance. 



gunta), (1908), 32 Mad. 185 ; Devara- 
yan Chetty v. Mutturaman Chetty 
(1912), 37 Mad. 393 ; Dholidas Ishvar 
v. Fukhand (1897), 22 Bom. 658; 
JDirfari v. Vallabdas Pragji (1888), 13 
Bom. 126. See Pitamber Ratansi v. 
JagjivanJIan$raj(l884:), 13 Bom. 131. 

1 BaMeo Sahai v. Jumna Kunwar 
(1901), 23 Ail. 495, following Visva- 
nathan v. JSaminathan (1889), 13 Mad. 
83. See Vaithyanatham v. Oangarazu 
(1893), 17 Mad. 9; Earn Chand Sen v. 
Audaito Sen (1884), 10 Calo. 1054. 
LaUun Monee Dossee (Ranee) v. Nobin 
Mohun Singh (1875), 25 W. R. 0. R. 
32; Jogeswar Chakrdbalti v. Panch 
Kauri Chakrabatti (1870), 5 B. L. R. 
395 ; 14 W. R. C. R. 154 ; Juggsr- 
nath P&rsad v. Janky Persad (1859), 2 
Boul. 28; Bhattacharya's "Hindu 
Law,'* 2nd ed., pp. 101, 102. " Manu' ' 
says (iii. 51), "Let no father, who 
knows the law, receive a gratuity, 
however small, for giving his daughter 
in marriage, since the man who 
through avarice takes gratuity for 
that purpose is a seller of his off- 
spring," but the practice is very 
common. 

2 Ramckand Sen v. Audaito Sett 
(1884), 10 Calc. 1054; Jogeswar 
CkaJcrabatti v. Panch Kawi Chakra- 
fcoto" (1870), 5 B. L. R. 395, 14 W. 
R. 0. R. 154 ; Itambhat v. Timmayya 
(1892), 16 Bom. 673 ; Malji Thaker- 
sty v. tiomti (1887), 11 Bom. 412; 

T. Fufom ( W9), 33 Bom. 



411; 10 Bom. L. R. 649. See Indian 
Contract Act (IX. of 1872), s. 65. 

8 See Indian Contract Act (IX. of 
1872), s. 65, illus. (a). 

4 Vailhyanatham v. Oangarazu 
(1893), 17 Mad. 19; Pitambw Ua- 
tansi v. Jagjivan Hansraj (1884), 13 
Bom. 131. See Dulan v. Vallabdas 
Pragji (1888), 13 Bom. 126, at p. 
130 ; Jogeswar Chakrabatti v. Panch 
Kauri Qhakrabatti (1870), 5 B. L. R. 
395, 14 W. R. C. R. 154. 

6 In Vaikuntam Ammangar v. 
Kallapiran Ayyangar (1902), 26 Mad, 
497, the Court only allowed the ex- 
penses of ceremonies which invariably 
formed part of the marriage cere- 
monies, and disallowed the expenses 
of ceremonies which were usually, 
though not invariably, performed. 
It is submitted that greater latitude 
should be allowed to a guardian. The 
" Mitakshara " (chap.j L, s. 7, paras. 
5-14), and the " Viramitrodaya " 
(chap, ij., Part I. s. 2u), provide for 
the dowry and marriage i expenses of a 
daughter one-fourth of What she would 
have been entitled to receive if she 
had been a son, see Omraman Sahu 
v. Qopi Sahu (1909), 13 JO. W. N. 994, 
at p. 997; Sarkar's "&indu Law,*' 
3rd ed , p. 245. 

6 See Vaikuntam 



512. Indian Contract Act (IX. of 
1872), s. 69. 



CHAP. I.] MAIUUA&EJ EXPENSES 53 

These expenses have been held to include a gift on the occasion of the 
dwiragaman or gowna ceremony which takes place subsequent to the mar- 
riage. 1 The Madras High Court has held that where a mother gave her 
daughter in marriage against the wish of her husband's father she was 
nevertheless entitled to be repaid the expenses out of the family property. 2 

The expenses of the marriage of a male member of a family 
must also be paid out of the family property. 3 

In the case of a joint family governed by the Bengal school 
of law the marriage expenses of the daughters of the co-sharers, 
and of persons who are excluded from inheritance, and of other 
unmarried female members of the family, such as daughters of 
adult sons of co-sharers, would be payable out of the family 
property. 4 

A father is not, in the absence of a contract, under a legal Liability of 
liability to pay the marriage expenses of any of his children, 5 
but after his death the reasonable expenses of the marriages of 
his daughters are payable out of his estate. 6 

Such expenses create a charge upon the property to the same extent 
as rights of maintenance create a charge> 7 and to such extent only. 

There is also authority that the estate of a deceased Hindu is liable Grandfatliet. 
for the -.--..- , * .1 

him. 8 



Where a ward has separate property a guardian would be Payment out 

* i i of infant's 

entitled to pay thereout the reasonable expenses of his ward s property. 
marriage. 9 

* Churaman Sahu v> Oopi Sahu * Saikar's "Hindu Law," 3rd ad., 
(1909), 13 0. W. N. 994. pp. 10<>, 107. 

* Ranganaticimmal v. Aamanuja 6 Bun&ari AMtnal V. Bubtamante 
Aiyangar (1911), 35 Mad, 728. Ayyar (1902), 26 Mad. 505. 

8 8undrabai v. SUvnararayana * Prectj tfurain v. Ajodhyapurshad 

(1907), 32 Bom. 81 ; 9 Bom. L. R. (1848), 7 Ben. Sol. R. 513, 2nd ed., 

1366 ; Bhagirathi v. Mhu, Mam 602 ; Gunput Latt (Lalk) v, Toorun 

Upadhia (1910), 32 All. 575; Ka,~ Koonwar (Mussamut) (1871), 16 W. 

meswari Sastri v. Veeracharlu (1910), R. C. B. 52. See Kamcoomar Mitter 

34 Mad 422 ; Gopalalcrishnam v. v. Ichamoyi Dasi (1880), 6 Gale. 36, 

Venlcatanarasa (1912), 37 Mad. 273, at p. 37 ; 6 C. L. R. 429, at 430. 

dissenting from Govindarazulu Nara- 7 See post, pp. 89-92. 

sinhan v. Devardbhotla Venkatanara- * Ramcoomar Mitter v. Ichamoyi 

sauya (1903), 27 Mad. 206 ; Narayana Dasi (1880), 6 Calc. 36 ; 6 C. L. R. 429. 

v. JtemoK nga (1915), 39 Mad. 587. ' Jw*ur Sircar v. NOa^ur 

The expenses of a second marriage Biswas (1865), 3 W, R. C. R. 217 ; 

some cases be payable out of Makundi v. SaralsuJeh (188-i), 6 All. 

wjpWy, pfa&foM v, Jotiw 417, at p. 421, See ante, p. 52, 

Earn UjMhfa {liO);$2 AIL 575. note 5. 




51 FORMS OF MAHBIAGB, [CHAP. I. 



OP MARRIAGE. 

Forms of The only forms of marriage now recognized by the general 

reoo^iltdi OW Hindu law are the Brahma form and the Asura form. Both 

forms are now applicable to all classes. 

Where money is not paid for the bride the marriage is said 

to be in the Brahma form. Where there is a bride price the 

marriage is said to be in the Asura form. 1 

Ancient forms The ancient Hindu law allowed the following eight different forms of 
of marriage, marriage. 2 The first four of these were considered approved forms. 

1. The Brahma.* 

Brahma* This form of marriage originally contemplated the gift of the girl by 

her father to a man learned in the Vedas,* and was, therefore, peculiar 
to Brahmins. 

It is the only one now left of the four approved forms of marriage, 
and is now suitable for all classes. 6 

2, The Laiva.* 

&aiw. In this form, which was peculiar to Brahmins, the maiden was given 

in marriage to the officiating priest. 7 

3. The Ar sfca. 8 

In this form the father gave his daughter in consideration of one or 
two pair of oxen. 8 It was peculiar to Brahmins. 



* Bba v. Bantfi Pema (1912), 37 * So called because peculiarly fit 

Bom. 295; 14 Bom. L. B. 1182; f or Brahmins ColebrookeV Digest " 

Chumlal v.Surajram (1909), 33 Bom. vol. iil p. 604. ' 

433; 11 Bom. L. B. 708; AutM&e- * " Manu," chap. iiL para 27 

?T^ m GMty ' '** *" v. Harh- 

2, at p. 517. sondas HullocTuzndas (1876), 2 Bom. 



. 

x-i * ' at P- U ' ^^rama Casia Prtlay 

'Jajnavalkya,*' '* ^61; v. Bagamn PtUay, Mad. S. B. for 



, . . . 

' f f^ ^ X "' P aras - 39 ~ 54 ' 1859 P- 44> cited L Norton's Lead 
Colebrooke's Digest," vol. iii. 604. ing Cases," Part I. p 5 

dri arriage 6 Lii div!nfts so caUed W 



e 

recognizod by the Hindu law are ceremony proper for the gods 

probably to be traced historically to 1 Manu," iii 28 Coleb 

the customs of different tribes which Digest vol iii'p 604 

afterwa^ coalesced to form a single s Lit scr ipturai ? anything for which 

community' per West, J., fa F,'to- a RisU is an arthiity; Wfl 

ranwm v. I***** (1871), 8 Bom. Glossary/' p. 32 

H. C. 0. a 244, at p. 254, . ManV^hap iii. para . 29. 



CHAP. I.] FOKMS OF MAKKIAGE. 55 



4, The Prajapatya or Kayo,.* 

In this form the bridegroom was an applicant for the bride, It was 
peculiar to Brahmins. 2 

5. The Awra? 

In this form the bridegroom purchased the bride from her father. 4 Asura, 
The only difference between this form and the Arsha form is that in this 
form property other than cattle is taken by the father of the bride. 5 The 
mere giving of a present to the bride does not render the marriage an 
Asura marriage. Although there may bo Brahma ceremonies, where 
there is a *' bride price," the marriage is an Asura marriage. 7 

This form of marriage was permissible to Vaisyas and Sudras, but 
not to the two highest classes. 8 It is now applicable to all classes 9 and 
seems to be commonly practised throughout India. It is said to be, in 
fact, the most common form of marriage, 10 at any rate among Sudras in 
Southern India, 11 and members of the Bhandari and other inferior castes 
in Western India. 12 

6. The Gandfarla 

This form depended solely upon the mutual consent of the parties Gandharla. 
marrying. It was confined to the Kshatriyas or military class, 14 and seems 
to have been effected by mere consummation. 15 Although this form Allowed by 
of marriage is not recognized by the general Hindu law, a form of that cust *>in. 
name is permitted in some cases by family usage. In a case decided by 
the Bengal Sudder Court in 1817, a marriage by a member of the military 



1 So called as being the ceremony vol. iii. p. 604. Steele, p. 31. 

of the Kas or Prajapatis, the lords 9 Visvanathanv.SaminatJian(I8&Q), 

of created beings or progenitors of 13 Mad. 83. See Keslow Rao Diwa 

mankind; "Manu," chap. i. para, kur v. Naro Junardhun Patunkur 

34 ; chap. iii. para. 30. (1821), 2 Borr. 194 ; Nuvdlal Bhug- 

2 See Banerjee's " Law of Mar- wandas v. (Tapeedas (1810), 1 Borr. 14. 
riage," 3rd ed., p. 82. As to Western India, see Vijiarayigam 

8 Lit. demoniacal; Wilson's "Glos- v. LaJcshuman (1871), 8 Bom. H. C. 

saryt" p. 37. "It is called the 0.0.244. 

Asura form, as being the ceremony 10 Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 

of the Asura*, or the aboriginal non- 3rd ed., p. 83. Strangers " Hindu 

Aryan tribes of India." Banerjee's Law," i. 43. 

" Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 83. u See Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th 

* " Manu," chap. iii. para. 31. ed., pp. 99, 100. 

6 Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," " Vijiarangam v. Lafahuman 

2nd ed., p. 104. (1871), 8 Bom. H. C. 0. C. 244. 

Jaifasondas GopaUas v. ffarK- 13 The name is taken from that of 

sondasHulloc'handas(lBlQ),21&om. 9, "a kind of inferior divinity atten- 

at p. 15. " Manu," chap. iii. para. 54. dant upon Indra and Kuvera, and dis- 

' Ohunilal v, Surajram (1909), 33 tinguished for musical proficiency." 

Bom. 433; 11 Bom. L. R, 708. See Wilson's " Glossary," p. 164. 

" See " ^ nu " clia P- iu - P aras * 

GopaUas v. HarU- 32,41. 

nfa* (1876), 2 Bom. "TSarkar's " Hindu Law," 3rd ed., 

9, atp w1 k <ytefeooWe"DigesV s p. 84. 



FOBMS OF MARBIA&E. 



[CHAP. I. 



Ralshasa. 



Customary 
form of 
marriage. ' 



class in this form was recognized, 1 and the same Court, in 1853, 2 upheld 
a similar marriage by a Rajah of Julpigoree, who belonged to an aboriginal 
tribe, which had to some extent adopted Hindu customs. 3 

This form of marriage is said to exist still in the family of the Tipperah 
Rajahs, 4 and it was recently asserted to have taken place in a family 
in Ganjam. 5 A religious ceremony is now as necessary in a marriage in 
this form as when the marriage takes place in the ordinary forms. 6 The 
Gandharba form of marriage as now celebrated, and the ancient form seem, 
therefore, to resemble one another in name only 

7. The Eahhasa. 7 

This was a marriage by capture, 8 and would in the present day be 
dealt with by the criminal law. 9 It was peculiar to the Kshatriyas, or 
warrior class, 10 

8, 



In this form the Hindu law for the sake of the woman and her offspring 
treated as a marriage a seduction by fraud. 

Where by immemorial and continuous custom 12 a form of 
marriage, which is not repugnant to the fundamental principles 



1 Hujnw, Ohul v. Bhadoorun 
(Ranee), referred to in Ben. S. D. A. 
1846, p. 340, and 7 Ben. SeL R. 355 
(new edition, pp. 355, 356). 

2 Mokrund Deb Raekut v. Biases- 
suree (Ranee), Ben. S. D. A. 1853, 
p. 159. 

8 See Fanindra Deb Raikat v. 
Rajeswar Las (1885), 12 I. A. 72 ; 

11 Gale. 463. 

4 See Chuckrodhuj Thakoor v. 
Seer Chunder Joobraj (1864), 1 W. 
R. C. R. 194. 

5 Brindavana v. Radhamani (1888), 

12 Mad. 72. A marriage hi this 
form was also asserted in Hari 
Krishna Devi Garu (Sri Gajapaty) v. 
Radkika Patta Mafia Devi Garu, 
(Sri Gajapaty) (1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 
369 ; S. 0. on appeal, Radhika Patta 
Mdha Dem Garu (Sn Gajapathi) 
v. Nilamam Patta MaTia Dem Garu 
(Sri Gajapathi) (1870), 13 M. I. A. 
497; 6B.L.R.202; 14 W. R. P. C. 
33. 

6 Brindavana v. Radhamani (1886), 
12 Mad. 72 ; Hari Krishna Dem Garu 
(Sri Qaja<paty) v. Radhika Patta Maha 
Devi Garu (Sri Gajapaty) (1865), 
2 Ma<L H. 0. 369, at p. 374^ See 
ChuctooShuj Thakoor v. Beer Chunder 
Joobraj (1864), 1 W. R. 0. R. 194 5 



Bhaoni v M&haraj Singh (1881), 3 
All. 738. 

7 Lit. a fiend-like marriage. See 
Wilson's " Glossary," p. 436. 

8 "The seizure of a maiden by 
force from her house while she weeps 
and calls for assistance, after her 
kinsmen and friends have been slain 
in battle or wounded, and their houses 
broken open, is the marriage styled 
Rakshasa." "Manu," chap. iii. 
para. 33. 

8 Indian Penal Code (Act XLV. of 
1860), s. 366. 

10 Jaikisondas Goyaldas v. Harki- 
sondas Hullochandas (1876), 2 Bom. 
9, at p. 14. 

11 Lit. diabolical. Wilson's "Glos- 
sary," p. 389. "When the lover 
secretly embraces the damsel, cither 
sleeping or flushed with strong liquor, 
or disordered in her intellect, that 
sinful marriage called Paisacha is the 
eighth and basest." "Manu," iii. 
para. 34. 

12 See GathaRamMistree v. Moohita 
Kochin Atteah Domoonee (1875), 14 
B. L. R. 298 ; 13 W. R. C. R. 179 ; 
" Manu," iii. 35. As to the necessary 
conditions for the validity of a custom, 
see ante, pp. 28, 29. 



CHAP. I.] ttOHMS OF MA&BUGE. 57 

of Hindu law, is invariably practised by a particular class of 
persons or family, a marriage in such form is valid. 

In the case of a family or race which is not Hindu by origin, 
but which has gradually, or otherwise, more or less adopted 
Hindu customs or Hindu law, a custom at variance with Hindu 
law would be upheld, 1 provided that it were not repugnant to 
general ideas of morality. 

The following forms of marriage peculiar to individual families have Forms of 
(amongst others) been recognized by the Courts : cordm|to - 

In the Raj family of Hill Tipperah, marriage takes place in the familv usages. 
Gandharba 3 or SantigriMta * form, but the wife married in that form 
seems to be inferior to a wife married in accordance with the ordinary 
form. 4 

A Rajah of Orissa can marry a girl of a different caste in what is called 
the phulbiha form, which consists in putting a garland round the neck of 
the woman, or in an exchange of garlands. 5 

The Sagai form, 6 by which widows of the Namosudra caste, 7 and of 
the Koiries and other low castes in Behar, 8 and of the Hulwaee caste, 9 
remarry. 

The Kurao Llmrwcka, or the marriage of a widow with her deceased 
husband's brother, is common among Jats 10 and the Lodh caste u in the 
ISTorth-West. 

The Serai UdiU ia form, by which wives, deserted by their husbands, 
can remarry according to the custom of the Lingaits of South Canara. 13 

1 See Fanindra Deb RatJcat v. of the answers is given in Banerjee's 

Rajeswar Das (1885), 12 I. A. 72 ; " Law of Marriage," 3rd cd., pp. 

11 Calc. 463. 242, 243. 

z See ante, p 55. 8 la this form the main ceremony 

8 Lit. one who receives holy water* consists ia putting a red or Sinditr 

4 See ChucJcrodhuj Thakoor v. Beer mark on the bride's forehead in the 
Chunder Jodbraj (1864), 1 W. E. C. B. presence of assembled frieads aad 
194 ; Nobodip Chundro Deb Burmun relatives. Bissuram Koiree v. 
(Rajkumar) v. Bir OJiundra ManiJcya Empress (1878), 3 0. L. B. 410. 
Bahadoor (Rajah) (1876), 25 W. E. 7 Swry Churn Doss v. Nimai 
C. B. 404, at pp. 410, 414. Ohand Keyal (1883), 10 Calc. 138; 

5 As to the customs of the Urya 13 0. L. E. 207. See /&" v. Queen 
Eajahs and Chiefs, see the Pachis Empress (1892), 19 Calc. 627. 
8iwd, or twenty-five questions put 8 Bissuram Soiree v. Empress 
by the superintendent of the Tribu- (1878), 3 C. L. E. 40. 

tary Mehals in 1814 to the leadiag 9 A'aZZy GKwn Shaw v. DMee 

Eajahs in those Mehals. These Bib&e (1879), 5 Calc. 692. 

answers have been recognized by the 10 Poorunmul v. Toolsee Ram 

Courts, e.g. see Prandhur Roy v. (1868), 3 Agr^ 350; Queen v. 

Ramchender Mongraj, Ben. S. B. A, Bahadur Singh (1872), 4 N. W. P. 128. 

1861, p. 16 ; Dwrrap Sing Deo v. " Kewree v. Samardhan (1873), 5 

Buzsurdhun Roy (1863), 2 Hay. 335 ; N. W. P. 94. 

hur Nurendra Mcurdraj Moha* X1 Giving a clotli. 

^^itgffnmath Bfavmwbor Roy ls Virasangappav.Rvdrappa (1885), 

^'s Law Eepprfcer," 8 Ka4, 440. 
0. E. m, *i jx 9g. ae 



58 



CEREMONIES. 



[CHAP. L 



New sect. 



As to the Sikh forms of marriage, see Juggoinohun Mullick (Doe dem) 
v. Samncoomar Bebee (1815), 2 Mori. Dig. 43 ; Anand Marriage Act (VIL 
of 1909). 

As to forms of marriage which are recognized by local, tribal, or family 
custom, see Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., Lecture VI. ; Bhat- 
tacharya's "Hindu Law," 2nd ed., pp. 105, 111, 112; Risley's "Tribes 
and Castes of Bengal"; Crooke's "Tribes and Castes of the North- 
Western Provinces and Oudh " ; Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th ed., pp. 
121-125. 

As to the marriage of Hindus domiciled in the Madras Presidency 
following the Marumakkatayan or the Aliyasantana law of inheritance, 
see Madras Act IV. of 1896. 

Among the Nairs of Malabar there is a form of marriage called " San- 
landham" There are no ceremonies. It is dissoluble at the will of 
either party. The wife and children acquire no rights of maintenance or 
inheritance* It does not seem to have been recognized by the Courts, 1 
but it has been recognized by the Legislature in permitting registration 
of such marriages. 2 

The Travancore Legislative Council has passed the Nair Regulation 
recognizing the present custom of presentation of cloth by a bridegroom to 
the bride as a legal form of marriage among Nairs. 

Where " a new Hindu sect comes into existence, and, from 
religious scruples, adopts a form of marriage somewhat different 
to the ordinary form, it would be going too far to hold that 
these marriages are void, and thus to bastardize a whole com- 
munity, simply because the sect and its practices are of recent 
origin." 3 

The Provisions of the Marriage Act (III. of 1872) apparently apply to 
the Progressive Brahmos, but have no reference to the Adi or Conservative 
Brahmos who claim to be Hindus. 



MARRIAGE CEBEMONIBS, 

f 

Betrothal. It is usual, but not necessary, that marriage should be 

preceded by a betrothal, or formal promise by the father, or 
other guardian, 4 to give the girl in marriage. 5 Such betrothal 



1 15 C W. N. eels. 

* Malabar Marriage Act (IV. of 
1896, M. C.)> s. 3. 

* Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., p. 235. As to the marriage 
of Brahmos, see ibid., pp. 100, 104, 
105, 264, 265,i and Sonaluxmi v. Vish- 
nuprasad Hariprctsad (1903), 28 Bom. 
597 ; 6 Bom. L. R. 58, where a biga- 



mous marriage of members of the 
Brahmo Samaj was held to be invalid. 
See MutJiusami Mudaliar v.- Masila* 
mani (1909), 33 Mad. 342. 

4 Ante,w 40, 47. 

5 This is called vagdana, or gift by 
word. Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed.,p. 87; Wilson's "Glossary," 
p. 538. 



CHAP. I.] 



CEREMONIES, 



59 



is revocable, 1 and is not, in law, any obstacle to a marriage with 
another man. 2 

A promise of marriage cannot be enforced by a suit for specific perform- Effect o 
ance, 3 but a refusal to complete a betrothal or a promise of marriage by 
an actual marriage would give to the injured party a right to recover 
from the person making the promise compensation for the loss, if any, 
sustained by the breach of promise.* In case of such breach, a father, or 
guardian, would be entitled to recover money properly expended in 
contemplation of such marriage. 5 Such suits cannot be brought in a 
Provincial Small Cause Court. 6 

Should the betrothed damsel die before the marriage, the bridegroom Death of 
is entitled to recover back the presents given by him to her, subject to bnde - 
paying such expenses as have been incurred. 7 

There can be no valid marriage in any form without a sub- Necessity for 

, ,. , ,, . v o ceremonies, 

stantial performance of the requisite religious ceremonies.* 5 

Even when the gandharba form of marriage 9 is permissible by custom 
the Courts will not recognize it unless religious rites have been performed, 
although the gift of the bride is in a marriage in that form unnecessary. 10 

Hindu law does not recognize a marriage contracted by a Hindu, 
otherwise than with Hindu ceremonies, as, for instance, while he is a 
convert to another religion. 11 



1 See In the matter of Gunput 
Narain Singh (1875), 1 Gale. 74; 
Umed Kika v. Nagindas Narotamdas 
(1870), 7 Bom. H. 0. (0, C ) 122 ; 
Sircar's "Vyavastha Darpana," 2nd 
ed., pp. 645, 646. Steele, 24, 160. 
Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 3rd 
ed., pp. 53, 87-89. 

a Ante, p. 37. 

8 Act I. of 1877 (Specific Belief), 
s. 21, cL b. See illustration to that 
section, "A contracts to marry B." 
See In the matter of Gunput Narain 
Singh (1875), 1 Gale. 74 ; Umed Kika 
v. Nagindas Narotamdas (1870), 7 
BonuH. C. (0. C.)122. 

* Act IX. of 1872 (Contracts), s. 73. 
Purshotamdas Tnbhovandas v. Pursho- 
tamdaa Mangoldos Nathubhoy (1896), 
21 Bom. 23 5 Mulji Thakerwy v. 
Gomti (1887), 11 Bom. 412 ; Umed 
Kika v. Nagindas Narotamdas (1870), 
7 Bom. H. C. (0. C.) 122, at p. 136. 
See Noufbut Singh v. Lad Kooer (Mus- 
sumat (1873), 5 N. W. P. 102 ; In 
the matter of Gunput Narain Singh 
(1675), 1 Galo. 74, at p. 76. A person 
jM>t r a $>arty to the contract is not 
liMz*. Jekisonda-s v. 
(1916), 41 Bom 137* 



* "Mitakshara," chap. ii. s. 11, 
para. 28; Ramohat v. Timmaya 
(1892), 16 Bom. 673 ; Jogeswar Ohak- 
rabatti v. Panch Kauri Ghakrabatti 
(1870), 5 B. L. R. 395. 

6 Act IX. of 1887, Sched. EL, art. 
35; Kali Sunker Doss v. Koylash 
Chunder Doss (1888), 15 Gale. 833. 

7 " Mitakshara," chap. u. s. 11, 
paras. 29, 30; " Daya-Krama-San- 
graha," chap, ii., s. 1, para. 1. 

8 See Banerjee's " Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., pp. 99, 100, 105, and texts and 
other authorities there cited. Sircar's 
"Vyavastha Darpana," 2nd odL, p. 
650. Strange's "Hindu Law," vol. L 
p. 42. 

8 Ante, pp. 55, 56. 



12 Mad. 72; Hari Krishna Devi 
Garu (Sri Gajapaty) v. Radhika 
Patta Mahadevi Garu (Sri Gajapaly) 
(1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 369, at p. 374. 
See Strange's ** Hindu Law," vol. L 
p. 42. Sircar's "Vyavastha Dar- 
pana," 2nd ed, p. 650. 

11 Muthu$ami Mudaliar v. MasHa* 
mani (1909), 33 Mad. 342, at pp. 348, 
349, 



60 



CEREMONIES. 



[CHAP. i. 



Nature of 
ceremonies. 



Usual core- 
monies. 



Conditional 
marriage* 



The ceremonies vary according to local or family or caste 1 
usage. 

The ceremonies which are usually performed 2 are described 
in detail by H. T. Colebrooke, 3 and in lesser detail in Banerjee's 
" Law of Marriage " * and in Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law." 6 
See also Bisley's " Tribes and Castes of Bengal," vol. i. pp. 
148-152. 

The ceremonies usually commence with the performance of the nandi- 
mukk, or vriddi shradda, by the bride's father in honour of his ancestors, 6 
and the ceremonious bathing of the bride. On the bridegroom coming 
to the house he is ceremoniously received, and certain ceremonies, the most 
important of which is the gift of the bride to the bridegroom, 7 are observed. 
On the night of that day, or on the day following, the operative marriage 
ceremonies are performed by the bridegroom and bride. This is called 
panigrahana, or the acceptance of the bride's hand by the bridegroom. 
The sacred fire is kindled and oblations are made. The bridegroom takes 
the bride's hand, she steps on a stone. The bridegroom recites a fixed 
text. A hymn is chanted. The bride- and bridegroom walk round the 
fire, and then comes the most material of the marriage rites. The bride 
is conducted by the bridegroom, and directed by him to step successively 
into seven circles, a text being recited at each step. This is called Bapta- 
padi. On the taking of the seventh step, and not until then, the marriage 
is complete and irrevocable. 8 The bride thenceforth becomes a member 
of her husband's family. 9 

Other ceremonies which are not essential to the validity of the marriage 
are subsequently performed. 10 

8ata (exchange) marriage, which, according to the custom of the Kudwa 
Kuribi caste, is conditional upon the bridegroom's father providing a 



1 (1866), 3 Mad H. C. App. vii. 

2 These ceremonies are observed 
whether the marriage be strictly in 
the Brahma form, or whether, in 
consequence of a payment having 
been made to the bride's family, the 
marriage is in the Asura form ; 
Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 3rd 
ed., p. 94 ; Venfattacharyulu v. Manga- 
charyulu (1890), 14 Mad. 316, at p. 
319; Chunilal v. Surajram (1909), 
33 Bom. 433; 11 Bom. L. R. 708; 
Authibesavulu Chetty v. Mamanufam 
Chetty (1909), 32 Mad. 512. 

3 Essay III. on the Eeligious Cere- 
monies of the Hindus and of the 
Brahmms especially, "Asiatic Re- 
searches," voi vii. p. 288. 

3rd ed., pp. 95-98. 
5 2nd ed., chap. viii. 
V 6 The performance of this sradh is 
a^, essential ; Xrindabwn Chandra 

\ 



Kurmokar v. Chundra Kurmokar 
(1885), 12 Calc. 140, at p. 142. 

7 This transfers the guardianship 
of the girl. 

8 Brinddbun Chandra Kurmokar v, 
Chundra Kurmolcar (1885), 12 Calc. 
140, at p. 143. See Venkatacharyulu 
v. Rangacharyulu (1890), 14 Mad. 
316, at p. 318. Colcbrooke's Essay 
on the Religious Ceremonies of tho 
Hindus, "Asiatic Researches," vol. 
vii. p. 303. Strango's " Hindu Law," 
vol. i. p. 37. Strange's "Manual," 
para. 38. " Manu," chap. viii. para. 
227. Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. ii. 
pp. 487, 488. 

8 Bhattacharya's " Law of tho 
Joint Family," pp. 140, 141. 

10 For instance, see Vaikuntam 
Ammangar v. Kallayiran Ayyangar 
(1902), 26 Mad. 497. 



CHAP* I.] CEREMONIES OK REMARRIAGE, 61 

girl to be married to the son of the bride's father, does not take effect until 
the condition has been performed, although the marriage ceremonies have 
been completed. 1 

Whatever words spoken, ceremonies performed, or engage- Remarriage of 
nients made on the marriage of a Hindu female who has not widow " 
been previously married, are sufficient to constitute a valid 
marriage, have the same effect, if spoken, performed, or made 
on the marriage of a Hindu widow ; and no marriage can be 
declared invalid on the ground that such words, ceremonies, 
or engagements are inapplicable to the case of a widow. 2 

Although certain ceremonies are usual when the wife attains conaumma- 
puberty, consummation is not necessary to the validity of a tlolu 
Hindu marriage.3 

There may be a custom by which a ceremony is necessary on the wife 
obtaining puberty. 4 

DISPUTES AS TO MARRIAGE, 

The Courts have power to determine the validity of a jurisdiction to 
marriage either in a suit properly constituted for that purpose, vaSTof 
or in a suit or proceeding in which the question incidentally m&fTifk ^- 
arises. 5 

For instance, the question may arise in a suit for the possession of 
property, or for the restitution of conjugal rights, or in a proceeding 
relating to the guardianship of a minor, or as to the right to letters of 
administration, or in a criminal prosecution for bigamy, or adultery, or 
for enticing away a married woman. 

A suit will lie for a declaration that the defendant was not, as he or Suit for jsustl- 

she alleged himself or herself to be, the husband, or wife, of the plaintiff. 6 tatl <> n of 

f marriage. 

A decision as to the fact or validity of a marriage can only onty binds 
bind the parties to the litigation, 7 and then only if the ea 
complies with the conditions prescribed by s. 11 of the Civil 
Procedure Code, 1908.$ 

1 Uffri (Bai) v. PwrsTtottam Bku- 5 See Aunjona Dasi v. PraJdad 
dar (Patel) (1892), 17 Bom. 400. Chandra Ghose (1870), 6 B. L. R, 

2 Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act 243 ; 14 W. R. 0. R. 403. 

(XV. of 1856), s. 6. 6 See Mir Azmat AU v. Mahmud- 

3 Administrator-General of Madras ul-nissa (1897), 20 AIL 96. 

v. Anandachari (1886), 9 Mad. 466, 7 See Bromfomoyee v. EasU 

at p. 470 ; Dadaji BMJeaji v. Rule- Chunder Sen (1881), 8 Calc. 266 ; 10 

mabat (1886), 10 Bom. 301, at p. 0. L. R. 91. 

311 ,; Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. 8 Act V. of 1908 ; ci Act XIV. of 

it 3& 9 33. 1882, s. 13. See Evidence Act (I. of 

* 8<X*$httnd KolMa v. Janofae 1872), s. 43. 



PRESUMPTION, 



[CHAP. i. 



Presumption i Where it has been proved that a marriage has been cele- 
of nniage. y brated there is a presumption that it is valid in law, 1 and that 
all the necessary ceremonies were performed. 2 

A strong presumption arises when the parties are recognized 
by all persons concerned as man and wife, and so described in 
important documents and on important occasions* 3 



juga rig s. 



Suit for resti- It has been held by a Bench in the Bengal High Court 4 that this 
tution oi con- presumption, although it applies to questions of inheritance, does not 
a a ppiy ^ o a gu ft f or restitution of conjugal rights, and that in such a suit 

the performance of the ceremonies must be strictly 'proved^ but in an 
earlier case another Bench of the same Court 5 applied the presumption 
to a similar suit. It is submitted that there is no valid reason for making 
this distinction. Evidence of treatment is sufficient to prove a marriage, 
even in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, where the parties arc not 
subject to the Indian Divorce Act, 8 which, of course, Hindus are not, so 
b, fortiori, evidence of the marriage having been celebrated would, it is 
submitted, be suflficient. 

This presumption applies also hi the case of the remarriage of a widow. 7 
It has no application when a former valid subsisting marriage of the 
woman has been proved. 8 



Widow. 



Presumption 
as to form of 
marriage. 



There is also a presumption even among Sudras 9 that tho 



1 Inderun Valungypooly Taver v. 
Ramasawmy Pandia, Talaver (1869), 
13 3VL I, A. 141, at p. 158 ; 3 B. L. 
R.P.C. l,atpp.3,4; 12W.E.P.C. 
41, at p. 42 ; Mouji Lai v. Chandra- 
fiatti Kumari (Musammat) (1911), 38 
I. A. 122 ; 38 Calc. 700 ; 15 C. W. N. 
790; 13 Bom. L. R. 534; Fakir- 
gauda v. Oangi (1896), 22 Bom. 277, 
at p. 279. As to the proof of a 
marriage, see Luchrm Koer v. 
Roghunath Das (Chowdhry Mo/hunt) 
(1900), 27 L A. 142 ; 27 Calc. 971 ; 
4 C. W. N. 685. Act I. of 1872, s. 50. 
See Mufhusami Mudaliar v. Hasila-* 
mani (1909), 33 Mad. 342. 

8 Brindabun Chandra Kurmokar v. 
Chundra Kurmokar (1885), 12 Calc. 
140, at pp. 142, 143 ; Administrator- 
General of Madras v. Anandachari 
(1886), 9 Mad. 466, at pp. 469, 470. 
"If the evidence was sufficient to 
prove the performance of some cere- 
monies usually observed on such 
occasions, a presumption is always to 
be drawn, that they are duly com- 
pleted, until the contrary is shown." 
Diwali (Eat) v. Mtfi Kmon (1896), 



22 Bom. 509, at p. 512. 

3 Mouji Lai v. Chandrabatti Kumari 
(Musammat) (1911), 38 L A. 122; 
38 Calc. 700 ; 15 C. W. N. 790 ; 13 
Bom. L R. 534 ; Bepin Behary Das 
Bavragi v. Atul Krishna Das Bairagi 
(1911), 17 C. W. N. 494. 

* Surjyamoni Dosi v. Kalikanta 
Das (1900), 28 Calc. 37, at p. 50; 
5 C. W. N. 195, at pp. 204, 205. 

5 Brindabun Chandra Kurmokar v. 
Chundra Kurmokar (1885), 12 Calo, 
140, at pp. 142, 143. 

6 Act L of 1872 (Evidence), s. 50 ; 
see Chdlammal v. Ranganaiham Pillai 
(1910), 34 Mad. 277; Mouji Lai v. 
Chandrabatti Kumari (Musammat) 
(1911), 38 1 A. 122 ; 38 Calc. 700 ; 15 
C. W. N. 790 ; 13 Bom. L. B. 534. 

7 Lachman Kuar v, M ardan Singh 
(1886) 8 All. 143. 

8 In re Millard (1887), 10 Mad. 
218, at p. 221. 

9 Jagannath Raghuwth v. Narayan 
(1910), 34 Bom. 553 ; 12 Bom. L R. 
545 ; Trtkumdas Damodhar v. Ilandas 
Morarft (1907), 31 Bom, 583, at p, 
587. 



CHAP. I.] DIVORCE, 63 

marriage was according to one of the approved forms.* As the 
Brahma form is the only one remaining of such forms, 2 it follows 
that there is a presumption that the marriage was in accordance 
with the Brahma form. 3 

In prosecutions under ss. 494, 495, 497, and 498 of the offences re- 
Indian Penal Code* the facts and validity of the marriage . 
must be strictly proved. 7 

DIVORCE. 
Divorce is unknown to the general Hindu law, 8 

Divorce is allowed by custom in certain localities and among certain Divorce. 
low castes. 9 Such custom will not be recognized if it is immoral or contrary 
to public policy. 10 

As to the castes and localities in which such custom exists, see Steele's 
" Law and Custom of Hindu Castes," pp. 168, 169 ; Risley's " Tribes and 
Castes of Bengal ; " Crooko's " Tribes and Castes of the North- Western 
Provinces and Oudh;" Banerjee's "Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., pp. 
248-250, 257 ; Mayno's " Hindu Law," 8th ed., pp. 115-117. 

Where it is allowed by custom, a divorce by mutual agreement is 
recognized by law. 11 

Although matters of divorce are frequently adjudicated upon by a 
panchayet, or assembly of a caste, such panehayet has no power to declare 
a marriage void or to give permission to a woman to remarry. 12 In such 



1 Tkdkoor Deyhee (MuGsumal) v. 8 Kudomee Dossee v. Joteeram 
Rai BaluJc Earn (1866), 11 M. I. A. Kolita (1877), 3 Gala 305 ; Thapita 
139, at p 175 ; 10 W. R. P. C. 3, at Peter v. Thapita Lakshmi (1894), 17 
p. 9 ; Jagannafh Prasad Gupta v. Mad. 235, at p. 236 ; " Maim/' chap. 
Runjit Singh (1897), 25 Calc. 354, at ix. paras. 46, 101. 

p. 360 ; Gojdbai v. Maloji Raje Bhosle * See Kudomee Dossee v. Joteeram 

(Shrimant ShaTtajirao) (1892), 17 Bom. KoUa (1877), 3 Calc. 305 ; Eeg v. 

114, at p. 117; Judoonath Sircar v. Sambhu, Raghu (1876), 1 Bom. 347 j 

Bussunt Coomar Roy Cftowd&rp (1873), Eeg v. Karsan Goja (1864), 2 Bom. 

11 B. L R. 286, at p. 288 ; 16 W. R. H. C. 124 ; Khemkor v. UmiasJianJcar 

C. R. 105, at p. 106 ; Kaithe v. Ranchhor (1873), 10 Bom. H. C, 381 ; 

JCulMasi Koundan, Mad. dec. of Rain v. Govinda Valad Teja, (1875), 1 

1860, p. 201, Norton L. C. 5 ; Bom. 97, at p. 114 ; Dyarctm Doolwbh 

AutMJcesavulu Ohetty v. Ramanajam v. Umba (Baee) (1843), Morley's 

OUtty (1909), 32 Mad. 512, "Digest," vol. i., N. S., p. 181; Kcme 

2 Ante, p. 64. Dhoolulh v. Riittun J5?6ce (1817), 1 
8 Even whore the marriage is with Borr. 410. 

a divorced woman who is entitled 10 See Keshav Hargovan v. Gandi 

by custom to remarry ; Him v. (Bat) (1915), 39 Bom. 538 ; 17 Bom-* 

Hansji Pema (1912), 37 Bom. 295 ; L. R. 584. S 

14 Bom. L. R. 1182. ll Sankaralingam Chetti v. 8r 

* Act XLV. of 1860. Chetti (1894), 17 Mad. 479. 

* Empress v. Pitambur Singh was a case of members of the r 
(1879), 5 Calo. 566 ; 5 C. L. R, 597. caste in Tinnevelly. 

' See DaneBhBheikhv, TftfirMandal ia Soe Reg. v. Samhhu Eagli 

(1902), f a W. (NT. 143. 1 Bom. 347 ; Uji v. 

t Act I oj 1$12 (Evidence), s. 50, 7 Bom. H. C. A, 0. 



64 



DIVOEOB. 



[CHAP, 



Adultery. 



Remedy of 
wife. 



Indian 
Divorce Act. 



Change of 
religion. 

Divorce at 

instance of 
convert to 
Christianity. 



castes a divorce is generally not effectual, except with the aiithority of 
tlie panckayet, 1 

It "is incompetent to Hindus at the time of their marriage to arrange 
that the marriage be void in certain events, 2 whether divorce be or be not 
permissible in the particular caste. 

Except under the circumstances provided for in Act XXI. 
of 1866, the Courts have no power to decree a divorce. 3 

A dissolution of marriage is not effected by the adultery * 
of the husband or wife. 

The only remedy which a blameless wife has against an offending 
husband is to obtain a decree for her separate maintenance, 5 such decree 
being practically equivalent to a decree for judicial separation. 6 

The Indian Divorce Act 7 applies to a Hindu marriage con- 
tracted before the conversion of the parties to Christianity. 8 

The change of religion 9 or the excommunication from 
caste 10 of either party does not effect a divorce. 

Where a Hindu husband or wife is deserted or repudiated 
on the ground of his or her conversion to Christianity, a decree 
for divorce can, under the provisions of the Native Converts 
Marriage Dissolution Act (XXI. of 1866), 11 be made in favour of 
the person so deserted or repudiated, and the parties can marry 
again as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by 'death. 12 



1 See Ealii v. Govmd Valad Teja 
(1875), 1 Bom. 97, at p. 114. 

2 Sitaram v. Aheeree Heerahnee 
(Mussamvt) (1873), 11 B. L. R. 129; 
20 W. R,. C. R. 49. 

3 The Courts seem formerly to 
have granted divorces. See Kaseeram 
Kriparam v. Umbaram Hureechund 
(1811), 1 Borr. 387. 

4 Sutibaraya Pillai v. Ramasami 
Pillai (1899), 23 Mad. 171, at pp. 
177, 178. 

8 Post, p. 94. 

6 See Sitanath HooTcerjee v. Haima- 
"butty Dabee (Sreemutty) (1875), 24 
W. R. 0. R. 377, at p. 379. 

7 IV. of 1869. 

8 Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 

(X. of 1912), s. 2. Before the 
*mg of that Act the Courts enter-' 
i different views on the subject, 
ibardhan, Doss v. Jasadamoni 
'1891), 18 Calc. 252 ; Tkapita 
Thapita Lafalmi (1894), 17 
5; P&rianayakam v. Pottu- 
W 3 14 Mad. 3 ; Magania 



ZuburAust #&m(1870), 2 MT. W. P. 370. 

9 Government of Bombay v. Ganga 
(1880), 4 Bom. 330; AdmwiA 
trator-General of Madras v. Ananda- 
cUri (1886), 9 Mad. 466; Pena- 
nayalcam v. Pottukanni (1890), 14 
Mad. 382, at p. 384 ; Thapita Peter 
v. Thapita, Lakskm (1894), 17 Mad. 
235, at p. 239 ; In re Millard (1887), 
10 Mad. 218 ; In the matter of Mam 
faiman (1891), 18 Calc. 264; Go* 
bardhan Doss v. Jasadamoni Dassi 
(1891), 18 Calo. 252, at pp. 254, 255 ; 
contrd Sinammal v. Administrator- 
General of Madras (1885), 8 Mad. 
169 ; Rahmed Bibee v. Rolceya Bibee 
(1859), 1 Norton's L. C. 12. 

10 See Queen v. Marimuttu (1881), 
4 Mad. " 243 ; Administrator-General 
of Madras, v. Anmdatfwri (1886), 9 
Mad. 466 ; MfeJuxhur v. Mata Gholam 
(1870), 2 N. W. P. 300 ; contra Sin* 
ammal v. Administrator-General of 
Madras (1835), 8 Mad. 169. 

11 See the procedure provided bv 
that Act. J 

12 S, 19 of the Act. 



CHAPTER II. 

HUSBAND AND WIFE (continued), 
BECIPROCAL EIGHTS AND DUTIES. 

THE parties to a marriage cannot by arrangement or otherwise Agreement 
vary the rights, duties, and other incidents which the law rights, etc. 
attaches to tjie marriage state. 

An ante-nuptial agreement, by which the husband undertakes never 
to remove his wife from the parental abode, is not binding on him. x 
Similarly, no effect can bo given to an agreement which provides that, , 
on the husband taking another wife, the first marriage should be void. 2 

BIGHTS TO SOCIETY AND GUAEDIANSHIP. 

A husband is entitled to the society of his wife. 3 He can Bights of 
require her to live with him wherever he may choose to reside, 4 
and to submit herself obediently to his authority, 5 

* Effect cannot be given to an arrangement between husband and wife Post-nuptial 
that they should separate, and that neither of them shall sue for restitution J^SJSSton 
of conjugal rights, unless the agreement indicates a state of circumstances 
which would be an answer to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 6 

1 Tekail Mon MoUni Jemadai v. Kaunsiha (1890), 13 AH. 126; 8ita- 

Basanta Kumar Singh (1901), 28 nath MooJcerjec v. Haimabutty Dabee 

Calc. 751 ; 5 C. W. N. 673 ; Paigi v. (Sreemutty) (1875), 24 W. B. 0. B. 

Sheowrain (1885), 8 All 78, at pp. 377. 

79^ go. ' 5 Tekait Mon Moh/M* Jemadai v. 

a Sitaram v. Aheeree Heerahnee Basanta Kumar Singh (1901), 28 

(Mwsamut) (1873), 11 B. L. K. Calc. 751, at p. 760; 5 0. W. N. 

129 ; 20 W. B. 0. B. 49. 673, at p. 680 ; Sitanath Mookerjee 

8 Binda v. Kaunsilia (1890), 13 v. Haimabutty Qabee (SreemuMy) 

All. 126; CkMa Ram Mistree v. (1875), 24 W. B. 0. B. 377, at p. 

Moohita Kockm Atteah Domoonee 379. 

(1875), 14 B, L. B. 298, at p. 300; 6 RajluJchy Dabee (Sm.) v. Bhootnafh 

23 W. B. C. B. 179. MooJcerjee (1900), 4 C. W. N. 488. 

4 Tdwit Mon MoUni Jemadai v. See Tehait Mon Mohini Jemadai v. 

Bawnta Kumar Singh (1901), 28 Basanta Kumar Singh (1901), 28 Calc. 

Oalo* 751, at p. 760 ; 5 C. W. N. 673, 751, at p. 765 ; 5 C. W. N. 673, at 

at p, 680. See Matang^ni Dasi v. pp. 683, 684 ; Moola v. Nundy (1872), 

JfyttMM ! Otowder Mullick (1891), 4 K. W. P. p. 109. 
,l& Calc 1 ; 4, nfr ^ 90y, 01 ; Binda v. 

H.L. " ' 



66 



GUARDIANSHIP. 



[CHAP. II. 



An arrangement for a separation to commence at a future date is contrary 
to public policy. 1 



Guardianship 
of minor wife. . 



Guardianship 
of minor 
widow. 



Restraint of 
wife. 



A husband, even if he has not attained the age of majority, 2 
is the lawful guardian of the person of his minor 3 wife, 4 in 
preference to her parents or other relations, unless, according 
to the custom of the caste or community to which he belongs, 
he be precluded from such custody until the wife be fit for 
marital intercourse. 5 

It is the practice among the Hindu community in the Madras Presi- 
dency for a wife to be left with her parents until she attains puberty. 
The husband is only entitled to the custody of her person when such 
custody is necessary in her interests, 6 

After the husband's death the guardianship of his minor 
widow, and the management of her property, devolve upon the 
husband's heirs generally, or upon those Who are entitled to 
inherit his estate after her death, 7 in preference even to her own 
father. 8 On failure of her husband's heirs the widow's paternal 
relations are her guardians, and failing them, her maternal 
kindred. 9 

Having regard to the custom of the country that women, 
at any rate in the higher positions of Me, are secluded in 
the zenana, a Hindu husband would apparently be entitled 
to exercise, within reasonable limits, a certain amount of 



1 Krishna Aiyarv Balammal(l9lQ), 
34 Mad. 398 ; Merryweather v. Jones 
(1863), 4 Gift 590 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 90 ; 
10 L. T. 62 ; referred to in TeJcait 
Mon Mohim Jemadai v. Basanta 
Kumar Singh (1901), 28 Calc. 751, at 
p. 765 ; 5 C. W. N. 673, at p. 684. 

2 Act VIII. of 1890, s. 21. 

3 /.e. minor within the meaning of 
the Indian Majority Act (IX, of 1875). 

4 Guardians and Wards Act (VIII. 
of 1890), ss. 19, 41 (d). In the matter 
of Dhuronidhur OJiose (1889), 17 Calc. 
298 ; Kateeram DoTcanee v. Gfendhenee 
(Musscmut) (1875), 23 W. R. C. R. 
178. See Surjyamoni Dasi v. Kali- 
Jcanta Das (1900), 28 Calc. 37, at 
p. 45 ; 5 0. W. N. 195, at p. 201. 

5 Suntosh Mam Doss v. Oera 
Pattuck (1875), 23 W. R. 0. R. 22 ; 



, (1875), 24 W. R. 0. R. 228; 
S. C. (1876), 25 W. R. C. R. 386. 

6 Arumuga Mudali v. Vtrara* 
ghava Mudali (1900), 24 Mad. 255, 

7 Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," cd. 
1829, vol. i. chap. vu. p. 104 ; 
vol. ii. chap, vn., cases 1, 3. 
Xketer Monee Dassee v. Ktshen 
Mohun Mitter (1863), 2 Hay, 196; 
Marshall, 313; Khudiram MooJcerjee 
v. BonwariUl Eoy (1889), 16 Gale. 
584; Kesar (Sai] v. Ganga (Bai) 
(1872), 8 Bom. H. C. R., A. 0. J. 31 ; 
see West and Biihler, 2nd ed., pp. 
129, 134, 245, and 556; "Daya* 
bhaga," chap, xi., s. 1, para. 64. 

8 Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," ed. 
1829, vol. ii. chap. vii. case 3, p. 204. 

9 Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," ed. 
1829, vol. i. chap. vii. p. 1Q4. 



CHAP $ II.] BIGHTS Off WIFE. 67 

restraint upon his wife, even if she be an adult, so as to koop 
her at home. 1 

" The Hindu law, while it enjoins upon the wife the duty of attendance Duty of 1ms- 
on, obedience to, and veneration for, the husband, inculcates thai the bantl to wife. 
husband must honour the wife and treat her with affection and courtesy." 2 

In spite of early texts, which give a husband power to correct his 
wife, 3 it is clear that he is no way justified in chastising or assaulting 
her. The Indian Penal Code 4 does not exempt a husband from liability 
for an offence committed against his wife's person, except that it provides Q 
that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wjf e not being 
under twelve years of age, is not rape. 



of "wife, 



A wife is entitled to live with 6 and to be maintained by 7 R Ig ht 
her husband in his house. hfcl y f 

The mere fact that she has been excluded from caste does not make 
the wife a trespasser when coming to her husband's house. 8 If she has 
been expelled from his house for proper cause, she might be treated as a 
trespasser on returning without his leave. 

The right of a husband to the society of his wife, and that Enforcement 
of a wife to the society of her husband, may be enforced against 
the other party to the marriage 9 by a suit for restitution of 
conjugal rights. 10 , , ,'.'"', 

A suit for the purpose of obtaining possession of the person of , 

- - " " ..... - - ~ 

1 See Matangini Dasi v. Jogendra Basarda Kumar Singh (1901), 28 
Ckunder Mulhck (1891), 19 Calc. 84, Calc. 751 ; 5 C. W. N 673 ; Swrjya 
at pp. 90, 91. Moni Dasi v Kalikanta Das (1900), 

2 Matangini Das^ v. Jogendra 28 Calc. 37, at p. 45 ; 5 W. N. 
Chunder Mulhck (1891), 19 Calc. 84, 195, at p. 201 ; Dadaji Bhikaji v. 
at p. 90. Rukmabai (1886), 10 Bom, 301; 

3 "Manu," chap. viii. paras. 299, Keshavlal Gird'harlal v. Bai Parvati 
300. (1893), 18 Bom. 327; Bimda v. 

4 Act XLV. of 1860. KaunsiUa, (1890), 13 AIL 126; Pcug* 
6 S. 375. See Qwen-Emyn>e$8 v. v. Sheonarain (1885), 8 All 78; 

Hwrnte Mohun Mythee (1890), 18 Jogen&ronundtw Dossm v. Hurrydoss 

Calc. 49. Oho$e (1879), 5 Calc. 500 ; 5 C. L. K. 

6 See Binda v. Katonsilia (1890), 65; Gatha Earn Mistree v. MooJiita, 
13 All. 126, at pp. 132, 133 ; Gatha Kochin AtteaJt, Domoonee (1875), 14 
Ram Mwtree v. Mooktta, Kochin B. L. R. 298; 23 W. E. C. B. 179; 
Atteah Domoonee (1875), 14 B. L. R. Kuroona Moyee Debee v. Gunga Dhtir 
298, t p. 300 ; 23 W. R. C. R. 179. Surmah (1873), 20 W. R. C. R. 50 ; 

7 Bee post, pp. 76, 77. Ghotun Bebee v. Ameer Chund (1866), 

8 Queen v. Marimuttu (1881), 4 6 W. R. 0, R* 105; Mefaram Nudial 
Mad. 243. v. Tfanooram Bamun (1868), 9 W. R. 

* As to the remedy against a C. R. 552. See Buzloor Rufacm 

person for detaining a wife, see (Moonshee) v. Shumsoomssa Begum 

. 74. (1867), 11 M. I. A. 551, at pp. 606- 

MMni JemadM v. 610 ; 8 W. R* P. C. 3, at pp. 12, 13* 



68 



DESERTION. 



[CHAP. ir. 



Grounds for 

refusing 

decree. 

Defence to 
suit for 
restitution. 



Cruelty, 



will not lie against the wife ; 1 but such suit might be treated as in substance 
one for restitution of conjugal rights, 2 

The circumstances which justify desertion are an answer 
to a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights. 3 

In Dadaji BhiJcaji v. RuJcmabai * the Court said, " It may be advisable 
that the law should adopt stringent measures to compel the performance 
of conjugal duties ; but, as long as the law remains as it is, Civil Courts, 
in our opinion, cannot, with due regard to consistency and uniformity of 
practice (except, perhaps, under the most special circumstances), recognize 
any plea of justification other than a marital offence by the complaining 
party, as was held to be the only grounds upon which the Divorce Courts 
in England would refuse relief in iScott v. $co#. 5J 5 

The circumstances which justify desertion are 

1. Cruelty, whether physical or moral, in a degree rendering 
it unsafe for the wife to return to the power of her husband, 
or reasonable apprehension of such cruelty. 6 

Cruelty to a less degree, 7 as, for instance, an unfounded imputation 
upon the wife's chastity, 8 or taking her jewels from her, 9 or mere unkind- 
ness or neglect 10 short of cruelty, would not seem to be an answer to a 



1 Ohotun Bebee v. Ameer CJiund 
(1866), 6 W. R. C. R. 105, followed 
in Mela/ram Nudial v. TTianooram Ba~ 
mun (1868), 9 W. R. C. R. 552. 

3 See FaJcirgauda v. Gangi (1898), 
23 Bom. 307, at p. 309. 

3 See Binda v. Kaunsilia (1890), 
14 All. 126, at p. 163. 

4 (1886), 10 Bom. 301, at p. 313. 
See Bahadur v. Raywanta (1904), 27 
All. 96, following Binda v. Kaunsilia 
(1890), 13 All. 126. 

5 (1864), 34 L. JT. P. & It 23 ; 
cf. Act IV. of 1869, s. 33. See, 
however, Muchoo v. Arzoon Sahoo 
(1866), 5 W. R. C. R. 235, at p. 236. 
It is submitted that this application 
of a principle of English law leads 
to difficulties, as a suit for judicial 
separation is inapplicable to Hindus. 
The matter must be dealt with by 
Hindu law (ante, pp. 3-5). See Buz* 
loor Ruheem (Moomhee) v. Shumsoo- 
nissa Begum (1867), 11 M. I. A. 551, 
at p. 614 ; 8 W. R. P. C. 3, at p. 15 

6 Dular Koer v. DwarJcanath Mis&er 
(1905), 34 Calo. 971 ; 9 C. W. N. 
510; Yamunabai v. Narayan More- 
shvar Pendse (1876), 1 Bom. 164, 



at p. 173 ; Matangini Dasi v. Jog en- 
dra Chunder Mulltck (1891), 19 Calc. 
84; Binda v. Kaunsilia (1890), 13 
All. 126, at p. 184 ; Sitabai v. Ram- 
chandrarao (1910), 12 Bom. L. R. 373. 
Cf. Buzloor Rulieem (Moonshee) v. 
Shumsoonissa Begum (1867), 11 M. I. 
A. 551, at p. 615 ; 8 W. R. P. C. 3, 
at p. 15. 

7 See Jogendronundini Dos$ee v. 
Hurrydoss GJiose (1879), 5 Calc. 500, 
at pp. 502, 507, 508; 5 C. L. R. 65, 
at pp. 71, 72. 

8 Yamunabai v. Narayan More- 
shvar Pendse (1876), 1 Bom, 164, at 
p. 173. 

9 Jeebo Dhon Banydh v. Sundhoo 
(Mussamut) (1872), 17 W. R. C. R, 
522. 

10 See SitanathMooJeerjee v. Haima- 
lutty Dabee (1875), 24 W. R. C. R,. 
377, at p. 379. As to the ideas of 
the early Hindu law with regard to 
the power to correct a wife, see 
Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i. pp. 
48, 49, referred to in Yamunabai v.* 
Narayan Moreshvar Pendse (1876), 
1 Bom. 164, at p. 173. 



CHAP. II.] CRUELTY, DISEASE, ADULTERY, 



69 



suit for restitution. In a case where a husband, a Brahmin, having 
expelled his wife, was living in his house with a low-caste prostitute, he 
was refused restitution. 1 

There seem to be no reported decisions in India on the subject, and it Cruelty of 
is unlikely that any cases would occur, but there seems to be no reason W1 e * 
why cruelty by the wife should not be an answer to a suit by her for 
restitution of conjugal rights. 

2. The fact that the person suing for restitution of conjugal Lo 
rights is suffering from a loathsome disease. 2 

Thus a decree was refused to a husband suffering from leprosy and 
syphilis. 3 It would follow that the communication of a noxious disease 
would justify a wife in declining to consort with her husband, 4 

If the principle laid down in Dadaji BMkaji v. ftukmdbai 5 be correct, 
diseases, which are not the result of marital offences, would be excluded 
from consideration, 

3. Adultery by the wife 6 in a suit by the wife. 7 ?fe! iery f 
As to adultery by a husband, see post, p. 71. 

It is unsettled whether mere loss of caste is an answer to a LOSS of caste 
suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 

Under the ancient law a wife could not be compelled to live with an 
outcast husband. 8 The High Courts at Agra 9 and Allahabad 10 have 
declined to accept loss of caste as an excuse for refusal to cohabit, but in 
another Allahabad case ll the High Court made return to caste a con- 
dition precedent to a decree. The right to the society of the wife would, 
it is submitted, be a right within the meaning of Act XXI. of 1850, 12 but 
the Court would, it is also submitted, have to inquire into the reasons 
for the degradation, in order to satisfy itself that a decree would not 
inflict unnecessary hardship upon the wife. Where the loss of caste is 

i DularKoerv.DwarlcanathMisser Colebrooke's "Digest," vol. ii. 

(1905), 34: Calc. 971 ; 9 0. W. N. p. 415. 

510 See Dular Koeri V. itaorfa. ' As to a suit by the tatud, 

wA Mimr (1904), 32 Calc. 234, Swjya^ DM v. Zakkanto Zfcr 

at p 239; 9 C. W. IN. 270, at (1900), 28 Calc. 37, at p. 47 ; 5 C. 

I Jfc 1 ' W. N. 195, at p. 203. 

^ See Colebrooke's "Digest," vol. Colebrooke's "Digest," vol. ii. 

"' ^mkuvar (JM) v. BUJca Kalli- ' Emurtee (M^samut) v Nirmvl, 

anji (1808), 5 Bom. H. C, A C. J. N. W. P. Reps., 1864, p. 583 

209. Devala considered phthisis as a Boko** v. Jtaymto (1904), 27 

disease justifying desertion of a hus- All. 96. 



(1876), 1 Bom. 1H at J* 
MU 88; (1866), 5 W. R. C. R. 235. 



70 



CHANGE OF BELIGION. 



[CHAP, ii* 



Change of 
religion. 



Condonation. 



N on -consum- 
mation. 

Minority, 



capable of expiation the course adopted in the above case was, it is sub- 
mitted, correct. 1 Where the loss is such as to involve no moral turpitude, 
the Court would not treat it as an excuse for desertion. 

It is not easy to say, in the present state of Hindu society, what offences 
Justify a degradation from caste. 2 

It is also unsettled whether the adoption of another religion 
by the person seeking restitution is an answer to the suit. It 
would apparently be an answer in most cases. 3 

The matter stands to some extent on the same footing as the case 
of degradation from caste. It would undoubtedly have been under 
the ancient law a ground for desertion. In the case of a conversion to 
Christianity the procedure provided by Act XXL of 1866 4 would by 
implication prevent a Court from forcing cohabitation upon a party 
refusing it on the ground of the conversion of the person seeking it to Chris- 
tianity. In the case of a conversion to Mahomedanism it would bo 
impossible to enforce cohabitation. The mere abandonment of Hinduism 
without any formal exclusion from caste would scarcely be an answer. A 
return to Hinduism after performance of the prescribed expiation would 
dispose of an objection to cohabitation on the ground of conversion, 

As to the effect of a change of religion upon the marriage 
tie, see ante, p. 64. 

Conduct which has been condoned is no answer to a suit 
for restitution, unless it has been revived by subsequent mis- 
conduct. 5 

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be refused 
on any of the following grounds : 

1. The fact that the marriage has not been consummated. 6 

2. Minority. 

The minority of the husband can be no answer to a suit by him, as 
ho is ordinarily entitled to be the guardian of his wife's person, 7 and it 
can scarcely be an answer to a suit against him. The minority of the wife 
would be no answer to a suit by the husband, except under circumstances 



1 Cf. Jtna (Bai) v. KJianoar Jina 
(1907), 31 Bom. 366; 9 Bom. L. R f 
451. 

2 Sec Banerjee's " Law of Mar- 
riage," 3rd ed., pp. 195, 196. 



5 W. R, 0. R. 235, at p. 236. See, 
however, In re the w%fe of P. Stree- 
nwassa, I Norton L. 0. 13. where 
the Court ordered ' the wifo of a 
converted Brahmin to be restored to* 



him on a writ of habeas corpus. It 
the rub adopted in Dadaji BUkaji 
v. JKuJcmabai (ante, p. 68) bo correct, 
change of religion would be no answer. 

4 Ss. 16-18. 

5 See JogendronundM Dossee v. 
Hurry Doss Ghose (1879), 5 Calc. 500 ; 
5 C. L. R. 65. 

6 Dadaji Bhikaji v. Eukmabai 
(188C), 10 Bom. 301, at pp. 310, 311, 

7 Ante, p. 66. 



CHAP. II.] MINOBITY, LUNACY, ADULTERY* 71 

which would disentitle him to act as guardian of her person, 1 but it might 
in some cases be proper to put him upon terms ; for instance, that she 
should be placed by him in charge of a female member of his family, 3 The 
minority of the wife could be no answer to a suit by her. 

3. The unsoundness of mind of the plaintiff, whether it insanity, 
commenced before or after the marriage. 3 The Court would 

not, however, make a decree, obedience to which might be a 
danger to the defendant. 

Sir William Macnaghten 4 considered that the insanity of the husband 
justified his wife in deserting him. He relies on a text of Mann, 5 which 
has been otherwise interpreted. 6 There is a text to the effect that the 
insanity of the wife is a ground for excluding her from the husband's 
bed, and from pilgrimage, but from nothing else. 7 

Mental infirmity short of insanity can clearly be no answer to a suit Mental 
for restitution.* weakness. 

4. A second inarriage by the husband. 9 Second 

5. Adultery by the husband, 10 Adultery! 

Where the husband is actually living in adultery, 11 or his conduct has 
been such as to prevent his wife from returning to him without loss of 
caste (see ante, pp. 69, 70) or injury to her self-respect and religious 
feeling, 18 the Court might refuse a decree. 

1 Ante, pp. 66, 68, 69. 7 Mad. 187 ; Nathubai BTtailal v % 

3 Surjyamoni Dasi v. Kalikanta Javher Raiji (1876), 1 Bom. 121, at 

Das (1900), 28 Calc. 37 ; 5 0, W. p. 122 ; Jeebo Dbon Banyak v. 

N. 195 ; Kateeram Dobanee v. Gend- Sundkoo (Mussamut) (1872), 17 W. 

henee (Mussamut) (1875), 23 W. R B. C. R. 522; Virasvami CJietti v. 

C. B. 178. Appasvami Chetti (1863), 1 Mad. H. 

3 See Binda v. Kaunsilia (1890), C. 375 ; see ante, p 36. 

13 All. 126, at p. 155; Sircar's 10 Binda v. Kaunsilia (1890), 13 

" Vyavastha Chandnka," vol. ii. p. All. 126, at p. 164 ; Paigi v. Sheo- 

489, note. Of. Indian Divorce Act narain (1885), 8 All. 78, at p. 81; 

(IV. of 1869), s. 33 ; Hayward v. Gantapalh Appalamma v. Gantapalli 

Hayward (1858), 1 Sw, & Tr. 81. YeUayya (1897), 20 Mad. 470; 

* "Hindu Law," voL ii. p. 62. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," i. 61, 

As insanity at the time of marriage 62. See Strange's "Hindu Law," ii. 

does not invalidate the marriage 46, 47. 

(ante, pp. 34, 35), it could not be ll Paigi v. Sbeonarain (1885), 8 

an answer to a suit for restitution. All. 78, at p 81. See Dular Koer v. 

5 " Mann," chap. ix. para. 79. Dwarlcanath Misser (1905), 34 Calc. 

Gloss of CuOuba, Colebrooke's 971 ; 9 C. W. N. 510, ante, p. 69 ; and 

"Digest," vol. ii. p. 412; Sircar's Dular Koeri v. Dwarkanath Misser 

"Vyavastha Chandrika," vol. ii. p. (1904), 32 Calc. 234, at p. 239; 9 

489, note. C. W. N. 270, at p. 274. See, how- 

7 Text of Devoid, Colebrooke's ever, case No. 457 of 1884, 20 Mad. 

' Digest," vol. ii. p. 414. 474, note. 

s Binda v. Kaunsilia (1890), 13 12 See OMnd Prasad (Lala) v. 

All 126, at p. 161. Doulat Batti (1870), 6 B. L. E. App. 

v t TMkaww (1883), 85 ; 14 W. B. C. B, 451. 



IMPOTENCE. 



[CHAP. ii. 



Impotence. 



Where order 
would be 
unjust. 



It is submitted that the impotence of the plaintiff l origi- 
nating after marriage is no answer to a suit for restitution. 

Whether it is an answer when it was existing at the time of the marriage 
would, it is submitted, depend upon whether the Court would set aside 
the marriage on that account. 2 Manu 3 makes no distinction between 
impotence arising after and impotence arising before marriage, but the 
text by which he is said to permit a wife to abandon an impotent husband 
has been differently interpreted. 4 

Where it would be manifestly unjust to order restitution of 
conjugal rights, the Court can refuse to make such order. 

For instance, in Moola v. Nundy 9 s where, in consequence of the miscon- 
duct of the husband, a panchayet had adjudged a separation, and the 
parties had lived apart for thirteen years, the Court declined to make 
an order. 

when right of A right of suit for restitution of conjugal rights arises on a 

suit arises. -, 

refusal, express or implied, to return to cohabitation. 6 

A formal demand, and refusal, to return to cohabitation is not a con- 
dition precedent to such suit, 7 but there must be a willingness on the part 
of the plaintiff to resume cohabitation. 

The suit must be brought within six years from the time when the 
right to sue accrues. 8 

A second suit for restitution based upon the continued disobedience 
to the decree in the first suit would apparently be barred by the law ol 
res judicata? but a second withdrawal from cohabitation would give a 
fresh cause of action. 10 



Repetition of 
refusal. 



JTorna of 
decree. 



The decree should declare that the plaintiff is entitled to 
the restitution of conjugal rights, and that the defendant (if 
the wife) be directed to go to her husband's house. 11 If the 



1 The impotence of the defendant 
is no answer, see Purshotamdas 
Mawklal v. Mani (Ba%) (1896), 21 
Bom. 610. Devala permitted a wife 
to desert her impotent husband. 
Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. ii. p. 470. 

2 See ante, p. 35, 

3 Chap. ix. para. 79. 

* See Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. 
ii. p. 412 ; Sircar's " Vyavastha Chan- 
drika," vol. ii. 489, note. 

5 (1872), 4 N. W. P. H. a 109. 

e Of, DlwnjibJwy Bomanji v. Hirabai 
(1901),25Bom.644; 3 Bom.L. B. 371. 

7 Binda v Kaun&ilia (1890), 13 
All. 126, at pp., 139 et seq. See 
Fakirgauda v. 6ftm^, ^1898), 2$ Bom. 



307, at p. 310. For the purpose of 
jurisdiction the cause of action zs 
considered to arise at the husband's 
house. Lahfagar Keahargar v. Suraj 
(Bai) (1893), 18 Bom. 316. 

8 Limitation Act (IX. of 1908), 
sch. 1, art. 120. See Krishna Aiyar 
v. Balammal (1910), 34 Mad. 398. , 

* The Court declined to decide this 
question in KeahavlaL Ghrdharlal V. 
Parvati (Bai) (1893), 18 Bom. 327, 
at pp. 329, 331. 

1 Ke&kavlal GirdhaM v. Parvati 
(Bai) (1893), 18 Bom. 327. 

11 Fwzund Hossein v. Janu Bibee 
(1878), 4 Calc. 588, at p. 591 , Fakir- 
gauda v. Gangi (1898), 23 Bom. 307, 



CHAP. II.] . EXECUTION* 73 

defendant be the husband the decree should direct him to 
restore such rights to his wife. 

The Court may make a decree for restitution of conjugal rights upon Conditional 
conditions to be fulfilled by the plaintiff . In one case l the decree was decree * 
made subject to the husband being restored to caste. In another case 2 
the Court required "that the house which the husband provides shall 
be in every respect fit for the reception of a virtuous and respectable 
wife." The Court might also require proper security to be taken for the 
protection of the wife. 3 

When the party, against whom a decree for restitution of Execution of 
conjugal rights has been made, has had an opportunity O f decreo - 
obeying it, and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may bo 
enforced by his or her imprisonment, 4 or by the attachment 
of his or her property, or by both. 

When the attachment has remained in force for one year, if the decree 
has not been obeyed, and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached 
property sold, the property may be sold, and out of the proceeds the 
Court may award to the decree-holder such compensation as it thinks 
fit, and may pay the balance (if any) to the judgment debtor on his or her 
application. Where the judgment debtor has obeyed the decree, and 
paid all costs of executing the same, which he or she is bound to pay, or 
if, at the end of one year from the date of the attachment, no application 
to have the property sold has been made or granted, the attachment 
should cease. The Court can refuse execution against the person, and may 
order periodical payments to the wife. 5 

Where the wife is within the Presidency towns of Calcutta, Summary 
Madras, and Bombay, the right of the husband to the custody reme ies " 
of his minor wife may be enforced by an order of the nature of 
a habeas corpus. 

at p. 309; Chotun Bebee v. Ameer See Tekait Mon Molini Jemadai v. 

Chund (1866), 6 W. K C. R. 105, Basanta, Kumar Stngh (1901), 28 

followed in Koobur KJiansama v. Jan Calc, 751, at pp. 755, 766 ; 5 0, W. 

Khansama (1867), 8 W. R. C. It. 467. N. 673, at pp. 677, 684. 

Of. Form 19 of schedule to Act IV. 3 Bnzloor MuJieem (Moonshee) v. 

of 1869. Shumsoonnissa Begum (1867), 11 M. 

1 Patgi v. Sheonarain (1885), 8 I. A. 551, at p. 617 ; 8 W. R. P. C. 

AIL 78. In Surjyamoni Dasi v. Kali- 3, at p. 16. 

kanta Das (1900), 28 Calc. 37, at pp. 4 Six weeks is the limit of iin- 

47, 48 ; 5 C. W. N. 195, at p. 203, a prisonment ; Civil Procedure Code 

husband was required to get his wife (Act V. of 1908), s. 58. 

restored to caste as a condition of 5 Civil Procedure Code (Act V. of 

obtaining a decree against her for 1908), Sched. L, ord. xxi., rules 32, 

restitution. 33. 

, * Jogmdronundini Dossee v. Hurry * Criminal Procedure Code (Act V. 

Doss G-Jiose (1879), 5 Calc. 500, at p. of 1898), s. 491. 
603; r<X k'.'Bi'Wy at pp. 72, 73, 



SUMMARY REMEDIES. 



[<3HAP. II. 



Guardians and 

Wards Act, 



Damages. 



There is also, throughout India, a summary remedy by a magistrate's 
order. 1 

Where the husband has already had the custody of his 

. .. -.,,-, . A -, , t 

minor wife, and she has left, or is removed from, his custody, 
there is also a remedy under sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards 
Act.2 

The husband is also entitled to recover damages from the 
person harbouring his wife or enticing her away, 3 whether or 
not for improper purposes, and to obtain an injunction against 
such person from interfering with his wife rejoining him. 

k Every person who receives a married woman into his house, and 
suffers her to continue there after he has received notice from the husband 
not to harbour her, is liable to an action for damages, unless the husband 
has, by his cruelty or misconduct, forfeited his marital rights, or has turned 
his wife out of doors, or has, by some insult or ill-treatment, compelled her 
to leave him." * 

A suit for damages against a person committing adultery with a wife 
would also apparently lie. 5 

It is not possible to lay down any exact rule as to the measure of 
damages in these cases. The principles adopted in English cases might, 
to some extent, be applied. On the one hand, the Court should consider 
the loss of the wife's society, affection, services and assistance in domestic 
atfairs, and the social injury (if any) which the husband is likely to suffer 
from the act complained of. On the other hand, the behaviour of the 
husband towards his wife may be taken into account. The capacity of 
the defendant to pay damages is not generally (if ever) a circumstance for 
consideration. 6 



property. 



EIGHTS OVER PROPERTY. 

Except that in times of pressing need he may use his wife's 
separate property, 7 and that he has in certain cases a right of 



1 Criminal Procedure Code (Act V. 
of 1898), ss. 100, 552. 
8 VIII. of 1890. 

5 See Hurka Sliunkur v. Raeejee 
Munofiur (1908), 1 Borr. 353. 

4 Yamuwbai v. Narayan MoresJwar 
Pendse (1876), 1 Bom. 164, at pp. 
174, 175. See Surjyamoni Dasi v. 
XdHkanta Das (1900), 28 Calc. 37, 
at p. 43 ; 5 C. W. N. 195, at p. 200 ; 
Loll Nath Mmer v. Sheoburn Pandey 
(1873), 20 W. E. 0. B. 92, 

6 Soofasun Bain v. Lokewuth 
MuKick (1S59), Montriou's cases of 



Hindu law, p. 619. Strange 's "Hindu 
Law," vol. i. p. 46, vol. ii. p. 41. 
See contrd, Macnaghten's " Hindu 
Law," vol. i. p. 61, and opinions of 
Colebrooke and Ellis, Strange's 
" Hindu Law," vol. ii. pp. 40-44, 

e See KeUy v. Kdty (1869), 3 B. 
L. B. 0. C. 67. 

7 See Mohima Chunder Roy v. 
Durga Monee (1875), 23 W. B. 0. B. 
184 ; Tukaram v. Gunaji (1871), 8 
Bom. H. C. A. C. 129 ; " Mitakshara," 
chap. ii. s. 11, paras. 32, 33; "Daya- 
bhaga," chap. iv. s. 1, paras. 19-25 ; 



CHAP. XI.] 



PROPERTY. 



inheritance, a husband does not by marriage acquire any 
beneficial interest in his wife's property. 1 

As to his power to control her disposal of property acquired by her 
in certain ways, see post, pp. 443, 444. 

A Hindu married woman is competent to contract, 2 but contract by 
unless she be an agent, either express or implied, of her husband, omLn. 
she does not thereby bind him or his property. 3 Her own pro- 
perty is liable for her debts. 4 

A woman is exempt from imprisonment in execution of a money 

decree. 5 

Where the wife is living with her husband, or is living apart from Necessaries, 
him under such circumstances as would justify an order for separate 
maintenance, the Court would presume an authority to bind the husband 
for necessaries, 7 but such presumption can be rebutted by evidence that 
the authority has been revoked. 

A Hindu married woman can sue or be sued in her own name. 8 Suit by or 

There is no presumption of law that transactions which stand m the n | d womeru 
name of the wife are the husband's transactions, 9 although it may fre- 
quently happen that a husband buys property in his wife's name. 



" Vivada Chmtamoni " (Tagore's trans- 
lation), pp. 264-265; "Vyavahara 
Mayukha," chap. iv. s. 10, paras. 
7-10 ; " Smriti Chandrika," chap. is. 
s. 2, para. 14. 

1 Sooda Earn Doss v. Jcogul Kishore 
Goopto (1875), 24 W. B. C. B. 274 ; 
Mohima Chunder Roy v. Durga Monee 
(1875), 23 W. B. C. B. 184. See 
Ramasami PadeiyatcU v. Virasami 
PadeiyatcU (1807), 3 Mad. H. C. 272, 
at pp. 278, 279 ; Reg. v. Natha Kalyan 
(1871), 8 Bom. H. 0. Or. C. 11. 

2 Indian Contract Act (IX. of 
1872), s. 11. The Hindu law per- 
mitted her to contract, see Nathvbliai 
Bhailal v. Javier Raiji (1876), 1 Bom. 
121, at p. 123; Strange's "Hindu 
Law," vol. i. p. 276. 

3 Pusi v. Mahadeo Prasad (1880), 
3 All. 122. 

* Nahalchand v. Bai Sheva (1882), 
Bom. 470 ; Oodey Singh (Kooer) v. 
Phool Chund (1873), 5 JST. W. P. 197. 
See Nathubhai, Bhailal v. Javher Ray* 
(1876), 1 Bom. 121 ; Oovindji Khimji 
v JMmidasNathubhoyttWty,*^' 
318; JVorofcwi v. Nanka (1882), 6 
Bom. 473 ; In r$ the petition of Radhi 



(1887), 12 Bom 229. 

5 Civil Procedure Code (Act V. of 
1908), s. 56, 

e Ante, pp. 68-70. 
7 Virasvami Chetti v. Appasvami 
CUtti (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 375, at 
p. 379; Pus^ v. Mafiadeo Prasad 
(1880), 3 All. 122 ; Nathubhai Bhai- 
lal v. JavJier Raiji (1871), 1 Bom. 
121, at p. 123 ; Contract Act (IX. of 
1872), s. 187. 

s Bhoyrubchunder Doss v. Madhub* 
chunder Paramanic (1863), 1 Hyde, 
281. 

9 Manada Swndari Ddbi v. Mohan- 
anda Sarmkar (1897), 2 C. W. N. 
367. See Ran Bijai Bahadur Singh 
(Diwan) v. Indarpal Singh (1899), 
26 I. A. 227; 26 Calc. 871; 4 
C. W. N. 1 ; Chowdrani v. Tariny 
Kanth LaUry (1882), 8 Calc. 545; 
11 C. L. B. 41 (on appeal this question^ 
did not arise, Dharam Kant Lahiri 
Ckowdhry v. Kristo Kumari Chow* 
dhrani (1886), 13 I. A. 70 ; 13 Calc. 
181) ; Narayaw v. Krishna (1884), 
8 Mad. 214 ; contrd, Bindoo BasUnee 
Debee v. Pearee Mohun Bose (1866), 

6 W. B. C. B. 312. 



Power of 



Debts of re- 

married 

widow. 



76 PROPERTY. [CHAP, n f 

Except so far as she may be entitled to maintenance there- 
out, 1 to a share on partition, 2 and to rights of inheritance, a 
wife does not by marriage acquire any interest in her husband's 
property or any voice in its management. 3 

A person who marries a Hindu widow is not, merely by reason of such 
marriage, liable for any of the debts of a prior deceased husband of such 
widow. 4 



suits between A husband may sue his wife, and a wife may sue her husband, 
husband and ^ respect of any cause O f ac ti n in the same way as if they were 
independent of one another. 5 

Theft, There is nothing in the law to prevent a Hindu husband or wife from 

being convicted of theft of the property of the other, but having regard 
to the authority which, when husband and wife are living together, would 
necessarily arise from the married state, it would generally be difficult to 
prove a dishonest intention. Where the wife is acting in concert with her 
paramour the intention would be more obvious, as she would not in that 
case be likely to suppose that she had authority from her husband. 6 



Maintenance 
of wife. 



MAINTENANCE. 

A wife is entitled to receive from her husband? food 
raiment, lodging, and provision for religious or other duties 
incident to the status in life which she occupies. 8 

As to maintenance out of property belonging to a joint family of which 
her husband is a member, see $osl t pp. 78, 79 ; and as to her right t 
a share on partition in lieu of maintenance, see post, pp. 331335. 
that she may have a right of maintenance against her 




'fro. 

8 Post, pp. 331-335. 

3 Sorolah Dossee v. BTiodbun 
Moliun Neoghy (1888), 15 Gale. 292, 
at p, 306. See Punna Bibee v. 
Itadhn Kissen Das (1903), 31 Calc. 
476 ; Narbadobai v. Mahadeo Nara- 
yan (1880), 5 Bom. 99, at p. 107. 

* See Bom. Act VII of 1866, s. 4. 
A different rule was, before the 
passing of that Act, applied by the 
Courts iix the Mofussil of the Bombay 



1 * Strange's "Hindu Law," vol. ii. 
pp. 59,, 60; 0. v. K. (1794), 2 Mor- 
ley's "Digest," 234; Colebrooke's 
*' Digest," bk. iv. chap. i. s. 1. See 
DeoTcoonwur v. Umfociwm Lato (1810), 



1 Borr. 370, note, p. 371. 

6 See Queen - Empress 
(1893), 17 Mad. 401; 
(1870), 5 Mad. H. C. App. Xxhl 
XLV, of 1860 (Penal Code) s" w 
illus. (n) and (o). rf78 ' 

7 JSidhngapa v. fodava (1878^ 
Bom, 624, at p. 628; S. Q. 2 Bom 
634; Macnaghten's "Hindu Lav'*' 
vol. ii. chap. ii. cases i.-iii. ; -^ ' 
bhaga," chap. iv. s. 1, p arat gl] 
" Vyavahara Mayukha," chap ' X y '' 
1 ; Colebrooke's " Digest," ^ f* 
420-421. PP ' 

8 See NittoUssorw Do&s ee / 
mutty) v. Jogendro Nauth 
(1878), 5 I. A. 55, at p. 57. 



CHAP. II.] MAINTENANCE. 77 

estate, 1 she has no right to bo maintained by her own or by her husband's 
relations, 2 unless they have property belonging to her husband in their 
hands. 3 

Except where she has been guilty of infidelity, 4 a husband may be 
required to maintain his wife, even though she cannot compel him to 
restore her to other conjugal rights. 5 

Although under the Hindu law the right of a wife to be maintained 
by her husband does not depend upon the possession of any property 
by him, 6 a wife would gain nothing by a suit against a penniless husband, 
and could only force him to maintain her by the fruits of his labour by a 
proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Code. 7 

As to the right of a wife to pledge her husband's credit for necessaries, 
see ante 9 p, 75. 

Although the husband may abandon Hinduism, he cannot Abandonment 

of Hinduism. 

thereby destroy his wife's right of maintenance. 8 

The Court can award maintenance to a wife whose marriage has been Dissolution of 
dissolved under the provisions of the " Native Converts' Marriage Dissolu- niarm s e - 
tion Act, 1866." 9 

Where the husband is excluded from inheritance on the Husband dis- 
ground of some disqualification, 10 his wife is, if chaste, entitled inheritance. 
to maintenance out of the property to which he would have 
succeeded if he had not been so disqualified. 11 If her sons 
succeed to the inheritance she has the right of a mother. w 

A wife would ordinarily be entitled to maintenance in her 
husband's house, 13 but when he, without excuse, 14 refuses to 
allow her to reside with him, 15 or when she is justified in 



* Post, pp. 210, 211. " " Mitakshara," chap. ii. s, 10, 
8 lyagaru Soobaroyadoo v. lyagaru paras. 1-4, 15; " Dayabliaga," chap. 

Sa$Jiama, Mad. S. B. 1856, p. 22; v. para. 19; "Vyavahara Mayu- 

Rangayian v. Kalyam Ummall, Mad. kha," chap. iv. s. 17, para. 12 ; 

S. B. 1860, p. 86, cited in 1 Norton Tagore's " Vivada Chintamani," p. 

L, 0. p, 39. 244 ; " Smriti Chandtifca," chap, r, 

3 Mamabai v. Tritribak Oanesh Deaai para. 43. 

(1872), 9 Bom* H. C. 283. See post, See post, p. 79. 

p, 79. 18 Silanath Mook&rjee v. Haima- 

4 Post, p. 78. butty Dabee (Sreemutty) (1875), 24 

5 See " Manu," chap. xi. para. 189. W, B. C. B. 377 ; Virasvami Chetli 

6 Narbadabai v. Mahadeo Nara- v. Appasvami Chetti (1863), 1 Mad. 
yan (1880), 5 Bom. 99, at p. 103. H. C. 375. 

See Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu 14 Ante, pp. 68-70. 

Mangamma (1902), 27 Mad. 45, at 15 Nitye, Laha v. Soondaree Dossee 

p. 48. (1868), 9 W. B. C. B. 475. See 

7 Post, p, 98. Sidlingapa v. Midava (1878), 2 Bom. 
a See (186'8), 4 Mad. H. C. App. iii. 634 ; Eampriya v. Blirigwram (1815), 

Act XXL of 1866, e, 28. 2 Wra. Macn. 109. 
1 Post, pp. 370-373. 



78 



MAINTENANCE. 



[OHAP 9 II. 



Release of 
right. 



residing apart from him, 1 she is entitled to separate main- 
ton ance. 2 

Except where there is such refusal or justification, a wife cannot enforce 
an arrangement for separate maintenance. 3 

A wife cannot release her right of maintenance, but an 
airangement fixing the amount of her maintenance will, if fair, 
be upheld. 4 

The right of a Hindu female to maintenance is one peculiarly needing 
protection. 5 

LOSS of right. A wife who without just cause deserts her husband, 6 or 
refuses to live with him, 7 or is unchaste, 8 loses her right of 
maintenance. 

An unchaste wife loses her right of maintenance, even if it has been 
secured by a decree, 9 or by an agreement. 10 

As to right of an unchaste wife to what is called " starving maintenance," 
see post, p. 83. 

A wife does not lose the right by a mere loss of caste. 11 



Maintenance 
of widow. 



A widow who succeeds to no property as heir to her husband, 
is (whether she has or has not a son) 13 entitled to maintenance 



1 Sitabai v. Ramcliandrarao (1910), 
12 Bom. L. R. 373. See Gabind 
Pershad (Lalla) v. Doulat Batti (1870), 
6 B. L. R. App. 85; 14 W. R. C. R. 
451. As to the circumstances which 
justify her in declining to live with 
her husband, seo ante, pp. 68-70. 

2 Matangini Dasi v. Jogendra 
CJmnder Mutticlc (1891), 19 Calc. 84 ; 
Stdhngapa v. Stdava (1878), 2 Bom. 
634. 

3 RajlukJty Dabee (8m ) v. Moot- 
nath Mookerjee (1900), 4 C. W. JST. 488. 

* Narbadabai v. Mahadeo Narayan 
(1880), 5 Bom. 99, at pp. 104-107. 

5 Ibid., at p. 107 ; Lakshman Ram- 
Chandra Joshz v. Satyabhamabai 
(1877), 2 Bom. 494, at p. 505; Com- 
ulmoney Dossee v. Ramnath Bysack 
(1843), 1 Fulton, 189, at p. 203. 

6 Surampalli JBangraramma v. Su- 
rampalU Brambaze (1908), 31 Mad. 
338 ; Vira&vami Chetti v. Appasvamt, 
CJi^ti (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 375. 

7 Ilafa Shavatri v. Ilata Nara- 
yanan Ntmbudwi (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 
372, at pp. 373, 374 ; Kullyanessuree 
Debee v. Duwrkanatb $wmah Chat- 



terjee (1866), 6 W. R. C. R. 116. 
She does not lose the right when she 
leaves him by his consent. Nilye 
Laha v. Soondaree Dossee (1868), 9 
W. R. 0. R 475, 

8 See Pirthee Singh (Rajah) v. 
Raj Kower (Ranee) (1873), I. A. Sup., 
vol. 203, at p. 210; 12 B. L. R. 
238, at p. 247 ; 20 W. R. C. R. 21, 
at p. 24; Ilata Shavatri v. Ilata, 
Narayanan Namludin (1863), 1 Mad. 
H. C. 372; Kan&asami Ptllai v. 
Murugammal (1898), 19 Mad 6. 

9 Nubo Gopal Roy v. Amnt Moyee 
Dossee (1875), 24 W. R. C. R. 428. 
See post, pp. 89,91. The decree cannot 
be altered m execution. There must be 
a fresh suit. Ranmalsangji JShagwa- 
tsangji (Mdhamna Shri) v. Kundan 
Kuwar (Baitihri) (1902), 26 Bom. 707. 

10 See Nagamma v. Virabhadra 
(1894), 17 Mad. 392. 

11 Act XXI. of 1850. Queen v. 
Marimuttu (1881), 4 Mad. 243. 

12 8Mb Dayee v. Do&rga Pershad 
(1872), 4 JSF. W. P. 63; Brinda 
Chouidhratn v. RadUca Chowdhrain 
(1885), 11 Calc, 492, at p. 494. 



CHAP. II.] 



MAINTENANCE. 



79 



out of the whole l of the property in which hor husband was 
interested as owner 2 or coparcener 3 at the time of his death, 
or in which he would have been so interested if he had not 
bgen disabled from inheritance, or from being a coparcener, 4 
whether she have property of her own or not. 5 

A suit for partition, subsequent to the widow's suit for maintenance, 
will not affect her right against the whole property. When she has not 
brought such suit her maintenance will be payable out of the property 
allotted to the branch of the family to which she belongs, 7 

This applies to impartible property. 8 

A widow is not entitled to maintenance out of property belonging to 
her husband which had become forfeited to Government on his conviction 
for rebellion, 9 but her right would be unaffected by a confiscation on 
account of the rebellion of her sons, or other heirs of her husband, 10 

A mother is entitled to be maintained by her son, and after Right against 

relations of 

husband. 



1 Subbarayulu Chetty v. Kamala* 
valhthayaramma (1911), 35 Mad. 147. 

2 Brinda Chowdhra^n v. Radhica 

Chowdhrain (1885), 11 Calc. 492, at Sheo Koonwer (Mussumat) (1866), 1 



4 N. W. P. 63; Lalti Kuar (Mu- 
sammat) v. Qanga Bishen (1875), 7 
N. W. P. 261 , MeJierban Singh v. 



p. 494 ; Narbadabaiv. Mahadeo Nara~ 
yan (1880), 5 Bom. 99, at p. 106 ; 
Bhagabati Dasi (Srimati) v. Kanailal 
Hitter (1872), 8 B. L. B. 225. As 
to her maintenance out of property 
which has been divested on adoption, 
see Dhurm Das Pandey v. Shama- 
soondri Dibiah (1843), 3 M. I. A. 229, 
at p. 243; 6 W. B. P. C. 43, at 
p. 45. 

3 Golab Koonwur (Mussumat) v. 
Collector of Benares (1847), 4 M. I. A. 
246, at p. 258 ; 7 W. B. P. C. 47, at 
p. 51 ; Dem Persad v. Gunwanh Koer 
(1895), 22 Calc. 410 ; Becha v. Moth- 
ina (1900), 23 All. 86 ; Savitribai v. 
Luximibai (1878), 2 Bom. 573, at p. 
582, and cases there cited; Jayanti 
Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangamma 
(1902), 27 Mad. 45; Adhibai v. 
Curtandas Nathu (1886), 11 Bom. 
199; Manjappa Hegade v. Lakshmi 
(1890), 15 Bom. 234; Jankibai v. 
Shnnivas Ganesh (1913), 38 Bom. 
120 ; 15 Bom. L. B. 853 ; Vwalatchi 
Ammal v. Annasamy Sastry (1870), 
5 Mad. H. C. 150; Subbramania 
Mudaliar v. Kaliani Ammal (1873), 
7 Mad. H. C. 226; Amnt (Bai) v. 
Manik (Bai) (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 
79 j Ramabai v. Trimbak Ganesh 
Desai, (1372), 9 Bom. H. C. 283; 
> Dqorga Pershad (1872), 



Agra. 106; Sheo Dyal Tewaree v. 
Judoonath Tewaree (1868), 9 W. B. 
C. B. 61, at p. 67; Hema Kooeree 
(Mussamut) v. Ajoodhya Pershad 
(1875), 24 W. B. C- B. 474. This 
rule applies to Khoja Mahomedans, 
JRashtd Karmali v. SJierbanoo (1904), 
29 Bom. 85. 

4 " Mitakshara," chap. ii. s. 10, 
para. 5 ; " Dayabhaga," chap. v. 
paras. 11, 14-16; "Srnriti Chan- 
drika," chap. v. paras. 10-14, 20. 

5 Lingayya v. Kanalcamma (1913), 
38 Mad, 153, differing from Ratnawali 
Koer v. Manjhan Koer (1906), 4 
C. L. J. 74. 

6 Subbarayulu Chetty v. Kamala* 
vallithayaramma (1911), 35 Mad. 147. 

7 Haridas Lalji v. Narotam Baghavji 
(1911), 14 Bom. L. B. 237. 

8 Stvananja Perumal Sethuroyer v, 
Meenakshi Ammal (1870), 5 Mad. 
H. C. 377. 

9 Gunga Baee v. Hogg (1867), 2 
Ind. Jnr. N. S. 124. 

10 Golab Koonwur (Mussumut) v. 
Collector of Benares (1847), 4 M. 1 A. 
246 ; 7 W. B. P. C 47 ; explained 
in Gunga Baee v. Hogg (1867), 2 
Ind. Jur. N. S. 124 ; and in Adhi- 
ranee Narain Coomary v. Shona Malee 
Pat Mahadai (1876), 1 Calc. 365, at 
pp. 373, 374. 



80 EBSIDBNOB 6F WIDOW. [CHAP. IT, 

his death out of his property, 1 but with that exception, and 
also with the exception that a daughter-in-law may enforce a 
right to maintenance against the property of her father-in-law 
after his death, 2 a widow has no legal right of maintenance 
against any of the relatives of her husband, unless they are in 
possession of property which belonged to her husband, or in 
which he was a coparcener, 3 

The sale of ancestral property which would have bound her husband 
if alive, does not give a right against a father-in-law or other coparcener 
for maintenance, 4 

As to her rights to a share on a partition between her sons or grandsons, 
see post, pp. 333-335. 

Although an heir or other person in possession of property may be 
liable to a widow for her maintenance, he is not liable to other persons 
on contracts made by her, even on account of her maintenance. 5 

A widow is ordinarily entitled to reside in her husband's 
wtow ' family dwelling-housed 

She cannot be ousted, 7 except by a purchaser who has bought under 
a decree which binds her, or to whom the property has been sold for the 
purpose of satisfying claims which are paramount to her right of main- 
tenance, 8 such as for debts incurred for the benefit, or on account "of the 

1 Subbarayana v. Subbak&a (1884), Timmappa BJmt v. Parmeshriamma 

8 Mad. 236; "Maxra," chap. vm. (1868), 5 Bom. H. C. A. C. 130, 

para. 389 ; Sircar's " Vyavastha whore Gibbs, J., said (p. 132), " Every 

Darpana," 2nd ed., pp. 375, 376. Hindu widow, whether her husband 

She has no such right against her was divided from the family or not, 

step-son or step-grandson. Daya is entitled, when in needy circum- 

(Bai) v. Natha Govindlal (1885), 9 stances, to claim from her husband's 

Bom. 279. See Saimtnbin v. Luximi- relatives." 

btn (1878), 2 Bom. 573, at pp. 582, * Ganga, Bai v. Sita Ham (1876), 

583. 1 All. 170, at p. 177. 

8 Post, pp. 210,211. 5 JRamasamy Aiyan v. Minakshi 

3 Ganga Bai v. Sita Ram (1876), 1 Ammal (1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 409. 

All. 170, at pp. 174-177 ; Khetra- 6 Venkatammal v. Andyappa GJietti 

warn Dasi v. KasUnath Das (1868), (1882), 6 Mad. 130 ; Devkore (Bai) 

2 B. L. A. C. 15, at p. 35 ; S. C. v. Savmuklvram (1888), 13 Bom. 101. 

Kasheenath Das v. Khetturmonee 7 DakuJchram MahasuJchram y. 

Dossee (1868), 9 W. B. C. K 413, at LaUubhai MoticTiand (1883), 7 Bom. 

p. 422 ; Ramabai v. Trimbak Ganesh 282 ; Venkatammal v. Andyappa 

Desai (1872), 9 Bom. H. C. 283 ; Chetti (1882), 6 Mad. 130 ; Gauri v. 

VisalatcU Ammal v. Annasamy Sastry Chandramani (1876), 1 All. 262 ; 

(1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 150 ; Sawtribai Talemand Singh v. Rukmina (1880), 

v. Luximtbai (1878), 2 Bom. 573 ; 3 All. 353. See Parvati v. Kisansing 

Ayaji GUwtaman Devdhar v. Ganga- (1882), 6 Bom. 567. 

aai (1878), 2 Bom. 632 ; Kalu v. 8 Jayanti Subtidh v. Alamdu 

KabMai (1882), 7 Bom. 127 ; Kanku Mangamma (1902), 27 Mad. 45 ; 

(Bai) v. Jvfov (Bai) (1883), 8 Bom. Manilal v. Tara (Bai) (1892), 17 

15; Daga'(B0S) v. Natfa Govindlal Bom. 398. See Mohun Geer v. Tota 

(1885), 9 Bom. 279, See, however, (Mussumat) (1872), 4 N. W. P. 153 ; 



CHAP, If.] 



RESIDENCE OF WIDOW. 



81 



necessities of the family, 1 or perhaps when another suitable residence is 
found for her. 2 

" The right of residence of Hindu females is ordinarily referable to the 
family house, and a purchaser may be presumed to have notice of that 
fact." s 

This right of the widow is personal to her, and cannot be attached in 
execution of a decree. 4 

An adult widow 5 is not bound to reside with the relatives of 
her husband, and she does not forfeit her right to property or 
maintenance merely on account of her residing with her own 
family, or leaving her husband's residence from any other 
cause than for unchaste or improper purposes. 6 

Where the husband has expressly directed that his wife's maintenance 
should be contmgent on her residing in the family residence with his 
relatives, 7 she would only be entitled to maintenance if she resided in the 



Bfakam Das v. Pura (1879), 2 All. 
141 ; Yamnabai v. Nanabhai (1910), 
12 Bom. L. R. 1075. 

1 Ramanadan v. Rangammal (1888), 
12 Mad. 260 ; Yamnaba^ v. Nanabhai 
(1910), 12 Bom. L. R. 1075 ; Kisandas 
v. Rangulmi (1908), 9 Bom. L. R. 382. 

a Mangala Debi v. Dinanath Bose 
(1869), 4 B. L. R. 0. C. 72 ; 12 W. 
R. 0. J. 35. 

3 Ramanadan v. Rangammal (1888), 
12 MadC 260, at p. 270 ; Yamnabal v. 
Nanabhai (1910), 3 Bom. L R. 1075, 
at p. 1079. 

* Salakshi v. Lakshmayee (1908), 
31 Mad. 500. 

5 As to a minor widow, see ante, 
p. 66. 

Pirthee Singh (Rajah) v. Raj 
Rower (Ranee) (1873), L A. Sup., 
voL 203 ; 12 B. L. R 238 ,- 20 W. 
R. 0. R. 21 ; Narayanrao Ramchandra 
Pawtv. Ramabai (1879), 6 I. A. 114, 
at p. 119 ; 3 Bom. 415, at p. 421 ; 
Kasturbai v. Shivajtram DevJcurna 
(1879), 3 Bom. 372 (differing from 
Rango Vinayak Dev. v. Yamunabai 
(1878), 3 Bom. 44); SurampalU 
Bangaramma v. SurampalU Brambaze 
(1908), 31 Mad. 338; Cossinavt 
Bysack v. Hurro&ondry Dossee (1819), 
Mortey's "Digest," vol. ii. p. 198; 
Nocfcon, 85; -S. 0. on appeal (1826), 
fccai'fc ^yyavastha Darpana," 2nd 

Oonsidera- 



tions of Hindu Law," p. 93 ; Clarke, 
91 ; Montnou's cases, 445 ; Mokhada 
Dossee v. Nundo Latt Haldar (1901), 
28 Cale. 278, at p. 287 ; 5 C. W. K. 
297, at p. 299 ; Siddeswry Dassee v. 
Janardan Sarkar (1902), 29 Calo. 557 ; 
6 C. W. JNT. 530 (a case of a widowed 
daughter-in-law) ; Koodee MoneeDebea 
v. Tarra Chand CJmck&fbuUy (1865), 
2 W. R. C. R. 134 (ditto) ; QoJcibai 
v. Lakhmidas Khimji (1890), 14 Bom. 
490 ; Vt&alatchi Ammal v. Annasamy 
Sastnj (1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 150; 
Akollya Bhai Delia v. Luckhee Monee 
Debia (1866), 6 W. R. C. R. 37; 
ChandrdbhagabJuti v. Kashinath Vzthal 
(1866), 2 Bom. H. C. 341, 2nd ed., 
323 ; Jadumani Dasi v. Kheytramohan 
Shil (1854), Sircar's " Vyavastha Bar- 
pana," 2nd ed., p. 384 ; Shumo Moyee 
Dassee v. Goyal Loll !>&$$ (1863), 
Marshall, 497; Uwrft Koweree v. 
Kidernath Ohose (1868), 3 Agra. H. 
C. 182 ; Parvatibai v. Chatru (1911), 
13 Bom. L. R. 1023. In RagJiuwda 
(Sri) v. Brozo Kishoro (Sri) (1876), 3 
L A. 154, at p. 191 ; 1 Mad. 69, at 
p. 81, the Judicial Committee said 
that it is in the husband's family that 
in strict contemplation of law the 
widow ought to reside. 

7 Mul$i Bhatehankar v. Bai Ujam 
(1888), 13 Bom. 218; Oirianna 
Murkundi Naik v. Honama (1890), 
15 Bom. 236. See Shurno Moyee 

G 



tOSS Ofl RIGHT. 



[CHAP, n. 



house in which her husband required her to be maintained, or if she from 
just cause abstained from residing in that house,* 

Where the family property is so small that the family cannot bear 
the strain of supporting the \vidow in a separate lodging, though it might 
be able to provide her with food in the family house, a Court might well 
in the exercise of its discretion refuse separate maintenance, 2 or, at any 
rate* in fixing the maintenance might decline to allow any amount on 
account of the expenses of a residence, 3 

By remarriage a \vidow loses her right to maintenance out 
of her husband's estate. 4 

right, A widow by unchastity forfeits her right of maintenance, 5 
even if such maintenance has been secured by agreement 6 
or decree ; 7 but where the maintenance has been given by a 
will it is not forfeited unless there be an express provision in 
the will 8 

Where the agreement for maintenance is made by way of compromise 
o! a claim for something more than maintenance, unchastity would not, 
in the absence of express provision, destroy the right to maintenance. 9 



v, Oopal Loll Doss (1863), 
Marshall, 497 ; Pirthce Singh (Rajah) 
v. Itaj Kower (Ranee) (1873), I. A, 
Sup. Vol. 203, at p. 210 ; 12 B. L, R. 
238, at p. 247 ; 20 W. R, C. R. 21, 
at p. 24 ; Narayanrao- Kamchandra 
Pant v. Ramabai (1879), 6 I. A. 114, 
at p. 119 ; 3 Bom. 415, at p. 421 ; 
Ookibai v. Labhmidas Khimji (1890), 
14 Bom. 490, at pp. 496, 497 ; Sircar's 
"Vyavastha Darpana," 2nd ed., 
p. 370. 

1 As to "just cause," see Promotha- 
wfith Itoit v, Nagendrabala Chaudhrani 
(1908), 12 C. W. N. 808. 

2 Kftfihrhai v SJiivajiram Devkurna 
HS79), 3 Bom. 372, at p. 376; 
Godavanlni v. Sagunabai (1896), 22 
Bom. 52. 

3 Sec RamcTiandra Vishnu Bapat 
v. Sagunabai (1879), 4 Bom. 261. 

4 Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act 
(XV. of 1856), s. 2, $0$, pp. 369, 370. 

5 Nagamma v. Virabhadra (1894), 
17 Mad. 392 ; Valu v. Qanga (1882), 
7 Bom. 84; Vishnu Shambhog v. 
Mmjammt, (1884), 9 Bom, 108; 
Roma .Nath v. Jtajonimoni Dasi 
(1890), 17 Calc. 674 ; DauUa Kuan 
v. Meg&u Tiw&ri (J893), 15 All. 382 ; 
FuafatcM Ammal T, Anmsamy Sastry 



(1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 150, at p. 160 ; 
Moniram Kolita v. Kerry Kohtany 
(1880), 7 I. A. 115, at p. 151 ; 5 Calc. 
776, at p. 786 ; 6 C. L. R. 322, at 
p. 330 ; Kery Kolitany v. Moneeram 
Kolita (1873), 13 B. L. R. 1, at 
pp. 72, 73 ; 19 W. B. C. R. 367, at 
p. 405; MuMammal v. KamaJcshy 
Ammal (1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 337; 
Sinthayee v. Thanakapitdayen (1868), 
4 Mad. H. C. 183, at 185 ; Bussunt 
Koomaree (Maharanee) v. Kummul 
Koomaree (Maharanee) (1843), 7 Ben. 
Sel. R. 144, new edition, 168 ; Mac- 
naghten's "Hindu Law," vol. ii. 
chap, ii, case 5, pp. 112, 113; 
Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i p. 172, 
vol. ii p. 310 ; " Mitakshara," chap. ii. 
s. 1, para. 7 ; " Dayabhaga," chap. xi. 
s. 1, para. 48. 

c Nagamma v. Virabhadra (1894), 
17 Mad. 392 ; Sathyabhama v. Kesava* 
charya (1915), 39 Mad. 658. 

7 Vishnu Shambhog v. Manjamma 
(1884), 9 Bom. 108; Daulta Kuari 
v. Meghu Tiwari (1893), 15 All. 382 ; 
see post, p. 91. 

8 Parami v. Mahadew (1909), 34 
Bom. 278 ; 13 Bom f L. R. 196. 

9 Bhup Singh v. Lachman Kunwar 
(1904), 26 All 32L 



CHAP. II.] ,S'AkVlNc; MAINTBKANCE/ 1 SB 

It is unsettled whether an unchaste wife or widow, on returning to a " Starving 
moral life, is entitled to what is called "starving maintenance," that i s *nainten. 
to say, just sufficient food to keep her alive. It is submitted that she is anc<?v " 
so entitled. In Honamma v. Timannahhat * the Bombay High Court 
allowed the right, but it was disallowed by the same Court in Valu v. Ganga* 
In a recent Bombay case, the following was said, " The general rule to be 
gathered f roln ' the texts ' is that a Hindu wife cannot be absolutely 
abandoned by her husband. If she is living an unchaste life, he is bound 
to keep her in the house under restraint, and provide her with food and 
raiment just sufficient to support life ; she is not entitled to any other ' 
right. If, however, she repents, returns to purity and performs expiatory 
rites, she becomes entitled to all conjugal and social rights, unless her 
adultery was with a man of lower caste, in which case, after expiation, she 
can claim no more than bare maintenance and residence." 3 The Madras 
High Court 4 has held that there is such right. In an earlier case 5 the 
same Court considered the question unsettled. In Romtmatli v. fiajoni- 
moni Dasi e the Bengal High Court was inclined to allow the right. Earlier 
authority is in favour of the right.? It is submitted that the better view 
is that the right should be allowed. 

She ia not entitled even to " starving maintenance," so long as she 
persists in a vicious life, 8 but it has been held that where "starving 
maintenance " has been allotted to her by decree, subsequent unchastity 
does not destroy the right. 9 

Mere loss of caste does not involve a loss of a right of maintenance. 10 

Where there is property liable for the maintenance of a Burden of 
widow, it lies upon the parties resisting the claim to separate proof ' 
maintenance to show that the circumstances are such as to 
disentitle the widow thereto. 11 

For example, they may show that she resides separately from her 
husband's family for immoral purposes, 12 or that the family property is 

1 (1877), 1 Bom. 559, 8 Kandasctmi Pillai v. Murugammal 

2 (1882), 7 Bom. 84. (1895), 19 Mad. 6 ; Romanath v. 
8 Parami v. Mahadevi (1909), 34 Rajonimoni Dasi (1890), 17 Calc. 674, 

Bom. 273, at p. 283 ; 12 Bom. L. R. at p. 679 ; Dautia Knari v. Megku 

196, at p. 200. Tiwari (1893), 15 All. 382 ; DeU&aran 

4 Sathyab'hama v. Kesavacharya Shukul v. Doulata Shuklain (1916), 39 

(1915), 39 Mad 658 ; conM Nagamma All. 234; Muttammal v. Kamalcsby 

v. Virabhadra (1894), 17 Mad. 392. Ammal(lBG5), 2 Mad. H. C. 337; see, 

6 VisalatcU Ammal v. Annasamy however, Parami v. Mahadevi (1909), 

Sastry (1870), 5 Mad. H. 0. ISO. 34 Bom. 278 ; 12 Bom. L. B. 196. 

6 (1890), 17 Calc. 674, at p. 679. 9 Honamma v. Timannabhat (1877), 

7 Steele, para. xxv. (new edition), 1 Bom. 559. 

p. 36 ; Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i. 10 Act XXI. of 1850. See Queen v. 

pp. 172, 175, vol. li. p. 39 ; " Vya- Manmuttu (1881), 4 Mad. 243. 

vahara Mayukha," chap. iv. s. 8, u See Saboo Sidick (Haji) v.Ayeslia* 

para. 9 ; " Mitakahara," chap ii. s. 1, lai (1903), 30 I. A. 127 ; 27 Bom. 

paras. 37, 38 ; Colebrooke's " Digest," 485 ; 7 C. W. N 665 ; 5 Bom. L. B. 475. 

vol. ii. pp. 423-425. See Norton's 12 Kasturlaiv.ShiwjiramDevkurn& 

" Leading Cases," vol. i p. 37. (1879), 3 Bom. 372, at p. 381, 



84 



TRANSFER. 



[CHAP. ii. 



Transfer of 
right. 

Attachment, 



Loss of 
mamtert 
by trans 
property. 



Gift or will 



so small as not reasonably to admit of an allotment to her of a separate 
maintenance, or that she has other means of maintenance. 1 

A wife or widow cannot transfer her rights to maintenance. 2 

It has been said that maintenance which has been fixed by agreement 
or decree may be transferable, 3 but it is submitted that the terms of s. 6 (d) 
of the Transfer of Property Act (IV. of 1882) prevent such transfer. 

There is, it is submitted, no reason why arrears of maintenance should 
not be transferable. 4 

A right to future maintenance, 5 or an interest in the income of immov- 
able property assigned by way of maintenance, 6 cannot be attached in 
execution of a decree, but there is nothing to prevent the attachment of 
arrears of maintenance. 7 

Unless their rights are secured by an arrangement or by 
decree, 8 it is submitted that a Hindu can by a transfer for 
consideration dispose of his property so as to deprive his wife 
or such other person whom he is legally bound to maintain 9 
of any right of maintenance against the property so disposed 
of, 10 except where such transfer is made with the intention of 
defeating the right, and the transferee has notice of such 
intention. 1 * 

As to an alienation pending suit, see post, p. 93. 

Provided he leaves sufficient property for the maintenance 
of his widow and those whom by law he is legally bound to 



1 See QoMai v. LaJchmidas KMmji 
(1890), 14 Bom. 490, at p. 496. 

2 See Narbaddbai v. MaTiadeo Nara- 
yan (1880), 5 Bom 99, at pp. 103, 104. 

3 Annapurni Nachiar (Ram) v. 
Swaminatha Ohettiar (1910), 34 Mad. 
7, at p. 9. 

4 See Eyidoori VenkataramamaTi v. 
Venkatachainulu (1909), 33 Mad. 80. 

5 Civil Procedure Code (V. of 
1908), s. 60. 

6 Gulab Kuar v. Bawidhar (1893), 
15 All. 371. 

7 Ibid. See A. P. Rajzrav Chandra* 
rao v. Nanarav Krishna Jahagirdar 
(1887), 11 Bom. 528 ; Asad All Mol- 
Uh y. Haidar Ati (1910), 38 Calc. 13. 

8 Kv&oda Prosad CTiatt&rjee v. Ja- 
gesfar Ko&r (1899), 27 Calc. 194. See 
post, p. 91. 



9 As where the right is to be main- 
tained from coparcenary property, 
Jayanti SubUali v. Alamelu Man- 
gamma (1902), 27 Mad. 45, at p. 49. 

10 See Sorolah Dossez v. Bhodbun 
MoJmn Neoghy (1888), 15 Calc. 292, 
at p. 306 ; Lalcshman Ramcliandra v. 
Sarasvatibai (1875), 12 Bom. H, C. 
69 ; Ram Kunwar v. Ram Dai (1900), 
22 All. 326; Venkatammal v. An- 
dyappa Chetti (1882), 6 Mad. 130; 
BhaffiratU v. Anantha Ghana (1893), 
17 Mad. 268. 

11 Imam v. Balamma (1889), 12 
Mad. 334 ; 3ehanlalji v, Rajbai (Bui) 
(1898), 23 Bom. 342; LaJcsJman 
RamcJiandra Jo$M v. SatyabJiamabai 
(1877), 2 Bom. 494, at p. 516. Of. 
Transfer of Property Act (IV. of 1882), 
s. 39, potf, pp. 90, 91. 



CHAP. II.] 



CONCUBINES. 



85 



support, but not otherwise, 1 a Hindu can dispose of his property 
by gift or will, so as to free it from claims to maintenance. 2 

He cannot by will exclude her right of maintenance, 3 and he cannot 
by disposing of the whole of his property by will 4 or gift 5 deprive his widow 
of her right to be maintained out of such property. 

A concubine, who has been kept by a Hindu up to the time Maintenance 
of his death, is entitled to maintenance 6 from the property ncu m 
(whether ancestral or self-acquired) of her deceased paramour, 
whether she have children or not,? but loses the right by 
incontinence. 8 

A woman with whom a, Hindu has only had casual intercourse, 9 or one 
with whom he has carried on an adulterous intrigue, 10 acquires no such 
right. 

A discarded concubine has no right of maintenance against her para- 
mour, or his estate. 11 

The right to maintenance cannot be enforced where 





means of 
support. 



1 Jamna v. Machal Sahu (1879), 
2 All. 315; Narbadabai v. Makadeo 
Narayan (1880), 5 Bom. 99, at pp. 
106, 108. 

a Debendra Coomar Eoy Cbowfthry 
v, Brojendra Coomar Eoy Chowdfary 
(1890), 17 Calc. 886; Bhoobunmoyee 
Debia Chowdhrain v. Ramkishore 
Acharj Chowdhry, Ben. S. D. A., 
1860, p. 485, at p. 489 ; Sorolah 
Dossee v. Bhoobun Mohun Neoghy 
(1888), 15 Calc. 292, at p. 306. See 
Razabai v. Sadu (1871), 8 Bom. 
H. 0. A. C. J. 98 ; Lakslimi v. 
Subramanya (1889), 12 Mad. 490, at 
p. 494; answers of law officers in 
Mulraz Lachmia v. Chalekany Ven- 
cata Rama Jaganadha Row (1838), 
2 M. I. A. 54, at p. 57. The widow's 
claim to maintenance cannot be de- 
feated merely by implication* Joytara 
v. RamTiari Sirdar (1884), 10 Calc. 638; 
Comulmony DOQSB& v. Rammanath 
Bysack (1843), 1 Fulton, 189, at p. 193. 
See Act XXI. of 1870, s. 3. 

8 See Promotfia NatJi Roy v. Nagen- 
drabala ChaudJirani (1908), 12 C. W. N. 
808. 

* Narbadabai v. MaJtadeo Narayan 
(1880), 5 Bom. 99 ; Jamna v. Machul 
JSaifw ,(1879), 2 All. 315; Sorolah 
Dwea -y. Bhoobun Mo7w,n Neogty 
(18183), 15 Calc. 292, at p. 306; 



v. BJiagwantrao (1900), 
2 Bom. L. R. 1082 ; Becha T. Mothina 
(1900), 23 All. 86. 

* See Act IV. of 1882 (Transfer of 
Property), s. 39, post, pp. 90, 91. 

* Ningareddi v. Lakshmawa (1901), 
26 Bom. 163 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 647 ; 
Ramanarasu v. Buchamma (1899), 23 
Mad. 282, at p 291. 

7 Yashvantrav v. Kashibai (1887), 
12 Bom. 26 ; Khemkor v. Umia- 
sJiankar Rantfihor (1873), 10 Bom. 
H. C. 381 ; Vrandavandas Ramdas v. 
Yamundbai (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 
229; Maenaghten's "Hindu Law" 
vol ii. chap. ii. case 12 ; Strange's, 
" Hindu Law," vol. i. p. 174 ; " Mitak- 
shara," chap. ii. s. 1, paras. 7, 27, 28 ; 
" Vyavalxara Hayukha," chap. iv. s. 8, 
para. 5. 

8 Yashvanlrav v. KasTiibai (1887), 
12 Bom. 26. See " Dayabhaga," 
chap. xi. s. 1, para. 48. 

9 SikU v. Vencatasamy Oounden 
(1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 144. 

10 Sikki v. Vencatasamy Gounden 
(1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 144. In KJiemkor 
v. Umiasnankar Ranchhor (1873), 10 
Bom. H. C. 381, above, note 7, the 
connection was apparently an adul- 
terous one. 



23 Mad. 282. 



86 AMOUNT. [CHAP. n. 

wife, or widow, or othor person claiming it has full inde- 
pendent means of support l from property in possession capable 
of providing maintenance, 2 whether derived from her husband's 
property or from Bomo other source. Where there is indepen- 
dent meant* of support, it must always be taken into account 
in fixing the amount of maintenance. 3 

Jewels and other property which are unproductive of income need not 
be taken into account. 4 

A previous provision of maintenance must be taken into account, 5 
even though it may have been expended. 6 

It has been held that a widow cannot enforce her right against pro- 
perty in which her husband was a coparcener, if the husband's separate 
property be sufficient for her maintenance. 7 No reasons were given for 
this proposition. 

Amount of The amount which a wife is entitled to receive for her 

maintenance, . , - i -i i j 

maintenance would ordinarily depend upon the position m 
life of the husband, the extent of his property, and the claims 
upon him being taken into consideration. 

The views of the husband on the subject of the amount, whether 
expressed in his will or elsewhere, may be taken into consideration, but are 
not conclusive. 8 

Yajnavalkya 9 fixed one-third of the husband's property as the proper 
amount, and this view has been acted upon in Bombay, 10 but the Courts 
will not now consider themselves bound by any such fixed rule. 11 

1 Stddessury Dossee v. Janardan 10 Calc. 638. 

Sarkar (1902), 29 Me. 557, at p. 576 ; 6 See JuttendromoJiun Tagore v. 

6 0. W. N. 530, at p. 547 ; Chandra- Ganendromohun Tagore (1872), I. 

bhagabai v. Kaehinath Vithal (1866), A. Sup. Vol. 47, at p. 82 ; 9 B. L. R. 

2 Bom. H. C., 2nd ed., 323 ; Shib 377, at p. 413 ; 18 W. K. C. K. 309, 

Dayee v. Doorga Pershad (1872), 4 at p. 373. 

N. W* P. 63 ; Savitribai v. Luximibai 6 See Sawtribaiv. Luximibai (1878), 

(1878), 2 Bom. 573, at p. 584 ; 2 Bom. 573. 

Strangers " Hindu Law," vol. i. p. 171, 7 See Shib Dayee v. Doorga Per- 

vol. li. p. 305. See Dattatraya v. shad (1872), 4 N. W. P. 63, at p. 72. 

Rukhmabai (1908), 33 Bom. 50 , 10 B See Promotha Nath Roy v. Nagen- 

Bom. L. E. 770. drabala Chaudhrani (1908), 12 C. W. 

2 Not a mere right of action, see N. 808. 

Gofabai v. Lakhmidas Khimji (1890), 9 Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. ii. 

14 Bom. 490. p. 420 ; " Vyavahara Mayukha," 

* 3 See Mahesh Partab Singh v. chap. xx. para. 1 ; see also Strange's 

Dirgpal Singh (1899), 21 All. 232. As " Hindu Law," vol. ii. pp. 45, 48, 51. 

to the case of maintenance provided l Ramdbaiv.TrimbaJcGaneshDe&ai 

for in a will, see Narayani Da&i v. (1872), 9 Bom. H. C. 283, 

Administrator-Cfeneralof Bengal (1894), ll See Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," 

21 Oak. 683. vol. ii. case 3; Banerjee's "Law of 

* Shti> Dayee v. Doorga Pershad Marriage," 3rd ed., p. 152. See 

(1872), 4 N. W. P. 63; Strange*s cases as to amount of maintenance 

" Hindu Law," voL ii p. 305. See of widow, post, p. 87, notes 4, 5. 
Joytara v. RamJwri Sirdar (1884), 



CHAP* II.] AMOUNT, 87 

The conduct o the claimant to maintenance, 1 and, it is said, 2 the Conduct, 
conduct of the husband, may be taken into consideration 

In fixing the amount of maintenance for a widow, pro- Amount 01 

it i P -I 11 L -TO maintenance, 

vision must be made for her reasonable wants, namely, for widow, 
the performance of charities and the discharge of religious 
obligations, such as religious ceremonies which by custom it is 
proper for her to perform, 3 in addition to reasonable provision 
for her food, raiment, and residence, having regard to the 
amount of the estate which is liable for her" maintenance, her 
position in life, and the circumstances of the family. 4 

The following has been held 5 to be the principle upon which main- Principle of 
tenanco is to be allotted to a widow :- nTenaul 

" Where a widow has asked for separate maintenance, you look first 
at the mode of life of the family during her husband's lifetime and you 
try to find out what amount will be sufficient to allow the widow to live 
as far as may be consistently with the position of a widow in something 
like the same degree of comfort and with the same reasonable luxury of 
life as she had in her husband's lifetime. Then you see what the husband's 
estate is, and you also see how far that estate is sufficient to supply her with 
maintenance on this scale, without doing injustice to the other members 
of the family who also have their rights as heirs, or their rights to main- 
tenance out of the estate." 

The principles applicable to the fixing of the amount of maintenance 
of a widow apply mutatis mutandis to the cases of other claimants to 
maintenance. 6 

The life of austerity in which, according to the Shasters, a Hindu 
widow is required to live, is not taken into consideration ; 7 but, on the 

1 See Juttendromohun Tagore v. 270 ; Karoonamoyce Dabce (Sm.) v. 
Ganendromohun Tagore (1872), I. A. Administrator-General of Bengal 
Sup. Vol. 47, at p. 82 ; 9 B. L. R. 377, at (1890), 9 C. W. N. 651. See NurJiar 
p. 413 ; 18 W. R. G. R. 359, at p. 373. S^ngh v. Dirgmth Kuar (1879), 2 

2 Banerjce's " Law of Marriage," All, 407, where it was held that the 
3rd ed., p. 152. fact that the widow had had a sou 

3 See Sundarji Damji v. Dahibai made no difference in the amount to 
(1904), 29 Bom. 316 ; 6 Bom. L. R. which she was entitled ; Comtdmoney 
1052. Dos$ee v. Rammanath Bysack (1843), 

* Nittokissoree Dossee v. Jogendro 1 Fulton, 189 ; Oojul Munnce, Dosee 

Nauth Muttick (1878), 5 I. A. 55, at v. Jygopal Chowdhree, Ben. S. D. 

pp. 56, 57 ; Banga Chandra Dhur A. 1848, p. 491 ; Bheeloo (Mussury,- 

Biswas v. Jagat Kishore Acharjya maut) v. Phool Chund (1824), 3 Ben. 

Ghowdhuri (1916), 43 I. A. 249; 44 Sel. R. 223, new edition, 298. 

Calc, 186; 21 C. W. N. 225; 18 Bom. 5 Karoonamoyee Dabee (Sm.) v. Ad- 

L. R. 368; Devi Persad v. Gunwanti ministraior-Gfeneral of Bengal (1889), 

Koer (1895), 22 Calc. 410, at p. 418 ; 9 0. W. N. 651, at pp. 652, 653. 

Baisni v. Rup Singh (1890), 12 All. 6 See Mahesh Partab 8%ngh v. 

558; Hurry Mohun Roy v. Nyantara Dirgpal Stngh (1899), 21 All. 232. 

(Sreemw&y) (1876), 25 W. R.'C. R. 7 Hurry Mohun Roy v. Nyantara 

474; I>MKumearv.AmbikaPartap (Sreemutty) (1876), 25 W. R. 0. R. 

Singh (1903), 25 AIL 266, at pp. 269, 474, at p. 476 ; Baisni v. JKup Singh 



AMOUNT. 



[CHAP. ii. 



Limited to 
husband's 
share. 



Funeral 
expenses. 

Debts have 
priority. 



Maintenance 
charged 011 
property. 



other hand, a widow is not necessarily entitled to be maintained in such 
a way that she can live in the same style as she lived in when her husband 
was alive. 1 

Any saving that she may make by living with her own family is not to 
be taken into account. 3 

There is no general rule as to the amount of maintenance to be allotted 
to the person entitled thereto. The amount of the property available, 
the claims of the different persons entitled to maintenance thereout, and 
the reasonable wants of the claimant for the support of himself and his 
family in accordance with the position of the family must all be taken 
into consideration. 3 

" The amount of the property ... is an element in determining the 
sufficiency of a maintenance, but it cannot be regarded as the criterion. 
Other circumstances, and even the position and conduct of the claimant 
. . , may reduce the maintenance." 4 

The necessities of the claimant are also not the sole criterion. 5 

A widow is not entitled to maintenance in excess x>f the 
annual proceeds of the share to which her husband would have 
been entitled on partition if he were living, 6 

If the produce of such share be insufficient for her support, it might 
be necessary to sell the share, and support her out of the proceeds. 

Her funeral expenses are also payable out of the estate 
chargeable with her maintenance. 7 

The maintenance of a wife or widow is postponed to the 
payment of the debts of the husband, or of the family, as the 
case may be. 

It is not settled whether debts take precedence of maintenance which 
is charged upon property by a decree or agreement. In two Allahabad 
cases, 8 in which the question did not arise, the Court held that debts had 
such precedence. It is submitted that maintenance charged by a decree 



(1890), 12 All. 558, at p. 563 ; 8Mb 
Dayee v. Doorga Pershad (1872), 4 
1ST. W. P. 63, at p. 72. 

1 Katteepersaud Singh v. Kupoor 
Koowaree (1865), 4 W. R. a R. 65. 

2 Hurry Mohun Roy v. Nyantara 
(Sreemutty) (1876), 25 W. R. C. R. 
474, at p. 476. 

3 See Mahesh Partdb Singh v. 
Dirgpal Singh (1899), 21 All 232. 

* Jwttendromohun Tagore v. Ganen- 
dromohun Tagore (1872), I. A. Sup. 
Vol. 47, at p. 82 ; 9 B, L. R. 377, at 
p. 413 ; 18 W. R. 0. R. 359, at p. 373. 

5 Ehwgwm Chunder Bose v. Bindoo 
Bashinee D<mee (I860), 6 W. R. C. R. 
286. 



6 Mahadrav Keshav Tilak v. Gan- 
gabai (1878), 2 Bom. 639 ; Adhibai v. 
Cursandas Nathu (1886), 11 Bom. 
199, at p. 209; Jayanti Subbiah v. 
Alamelu Mangamma (1902), 27 Mad. 
45, at p. 49; Shib Dayee v. Doorga 
JPershad (1872), 4 N. W. P. 63, at p. 72. 

7 Ratanchund v. Javherchand 
(1897), 22 Bom. 818; Sadasfav 
BhasJcar Joshi v. Dhakubai (1880), 
5 Bom. 450 ; * Vaidyanatha Aiyar v. 
Aiyasami Aiyar (1908), 32 Mad. 191 ; 
fiamdhari Singh v. Permanund Singh 
(1913), 19 C. W. N. 1183. 

8 Sham Lai v. Banna (1882), 4 All 
296, at p. 300 ; Gur Dayal v. Kaunsila 
(1883), 5 All. 367. 



CHAP. II.] 



DEBTS, 



89 



is on the same footing as a mortgage, and takes precedence of subsequent 
charges, and of all simple contract debts x created by or entered into by 
the person against whom the decree is made, or his representatives. 
Maintenance charged by an agreement would also, it is submitted, when 
there is no fraud upon creditors, take precedence of the debts of the person 
entering into the agreement, or his representative, provided the agreement 
complies with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 2 Maintenance 
charged by a will would not take precedence of the debts of the testator. 

The maintenance of a wife or widow is in one sense a charge Mafotenwe 
upon the property of the husband, whether ancestral or self- 
acquired, 3 as it is payable thereout, but it is not a charge in 
the fullest sense of the term, because it does not necessarily 
bind any part of the property in the hands of a purchaser. 4 It 
becomes a complete charge if it be fixed and charged upon such 
property, or a portion thereof, by a decree or by agreement, 5 
or by a will. 6 

This applies to the claims of other persons entitled to maintenance* 7 
It has been held that where a widow obtains a decree which creates 
a charge for maintenance, and takes no steps in execution, a subsequent 
purchaser is not bound by the decree. 8 It is submitted that the charge 



1 Kuloda Prosad Chatterjee v. 
Jageshar Koer (1899), 27 Cal. 194; 
Lakshman Ramchandra Joshi v. 
Satyabhamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, at 
p. 524. Sec cases post, note 5. 

a Act IV. of 1882, s 59. See 
definition of " mortgage," s. 58. 

3 Hemangini Dasi (Srimati) v. 
Kedarnath Kudu Chowdhry (1889), 
16 I A. 115; 16 Cal. 758; Narba- 
dabai v. Mahadeo Narayan (1880), 
5 Bom. 99 ; Ramanadan v, Rangam* 
mal (1888), 12 Mad. 260, at p, 271 ; 
Lakshman Ramchandra Joshi v. Saty- 
abhamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494. In 
Kalpagathachi v. Oanapathi Pillai 
(1881), 3 Mad. 184, at p. 191, the 
right was described as " a mere equity 
to a provision." 

a Bhartpur State v. Gopal Dei 
(1901), 24 All. 160, at p. 163 ; Sorolah 
Dossee v Bhoobun Moliun NeogJiy 
(1888), 15 Calc. 292, at p. 307; 
Sham Lai v. Banna (1882), 4 All. 296 ; 
Ram Kunwar v. Earn Dai (1900), 22 
All. 326; Digambari Debi v. Dhan 
Kumari Bill (1906), 10 a W. N. 
1074- See Ramanadan v. Rangam- 
mal (1888) ; 12 Mad. 260, at p. 272 ; 
Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamdu Man- 



gamma (1902), 27 Mad. 45, at p. 49; 
Venkatammal v. Andyappa Chetti 
(1882), 6 Mad. 130. 

5 MaTtalakshmamma Qarw (Sri 

Maniyam) v. Venkataratnamma Garu 

(Sri Maniyam) (1882), 6 Mad. 83, at 

p. 86 ; Bhagirathi v. Ananta CJiaria 

(1893), 17 Mad. 268; Yamnabai v. 

NanabJiai (1910), 12 Bom L. B. 1075; 

Lakshman Ramcha,ndra v. Sarasvatibai 

(1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 69, at p 75, 

explaining Heera Lall v. XousillaJi 

(Muswmat) (1867), 2 Agra, 42; 

Juggernath Sawnt v. OdUranee. Narai 

Koomaree (1873), 20 W. R. 0. E. 126. 

6 See Behanlalji Bhagwatprasadji 

(Shri) v. Rajbai (Bai) (1898), 23 

Bom. 342. Where the will directs 

maintenance but creates no charge, 

it would apparently bo otherwise, see 

Narayanrao Ramchandra Pant v. Ra 

mabai (1879), 6 I. A. 114, at p. 118 ; 

3 Bom. 415, at p, 420. 

7 Beer Chunder Manikkya v. Nobo- 
deep Chunder Deb Burmono (Raj 
Coomar) (1883), 9 Gale. 535, at p. 555 ; 
12 C. L. B. 465, at pp. 471, 472. 

8 Bhoje MaJiadev Parab v. Gangabai 
(1913), 37 Bom. 021 ; 15 Bom. I/. R. 
809. 



90 ffBANSFER OF PROPERTY. [CHAP. II. 

by decree has the same effect as a mortgage and binds subsequent 
purchasers. 

Decree against Where a charge for maintenance has been imposed upon family pro- 
P or ty by a decree in a suit against the representative of the family, as 
such, a member of the family who was not a party to a suit cannot dispute 
the decree. 1 It is otherwise in the case of a decree against the father, 2 
or other member of the family personally* A mere personal decree for 
maintenance does not create a charge. 3 

Right to By virtue of her right to maintenance a widow is entitled to contest 

dispute wi , t j le j actum O f her ^band's will, 4 or to discuss its construction so far as 
it affects her maintenance. 5 She docs not thereby acquire a right to 
dispute the will of her son. 

Transfer of The question as to whether a lond fide purchaser for valuable 

property when . , . . , 

claim to main- consideration is bound to satisfy a right of maintenance out 
thereout. of the property purchased by him has been the subject of 
considerable discussion "in the Courts. 

Although the 39th section of the Transfer of Property Act 7 is not 
to be deemed as affecting any rule of Hindu law, 8 its provisions are, it is 
submitted, in the main coincident with the law as laid down in the 
decisions. 9 

That section is as follows : 

" Where a third person has a right to receive maintenance, or a pro- 
vision for advancement or marriage, from the profits of immovable pro- 
perty,^ and such property is transferred with the intention of defeating 
such right, the right may be enforced against the transferee, if ho has 
notice of such intention or if the transfer is gratuitous ; but not against 
a transferee for consideration and without notice of the right, nor against 
such property in his hands." 

Illustration. 

A, a Hindu, transfers Sultanpur to his sister-in-law B, in lieu of her 
claim against him for maintenance in virtue of his having become entitled 
to her deceased husband's property, and agrees with her that, if she is 
dispossessed of Sultanpur, A will transfer to her an equal area out of such 

1 Minaksli Achi v. CJiinwppa Chortdhwn (1885), 11 Calc. 492. 
Udayan (1901), 24 Mad. 689 ; Sub- 5 Promotha Nath Eoy v. Nagendra- 
banna Bhatta v. tiubbanna (1907), 30 bala Chaudhrani (1908), 12 C. W. N. 
Mad. 324. 808. 

2 Muttia v. Virammal (1887), 10 Garabini Dassi v. Pratap Chandra 
Mad. 283. ShaJia (1900), 4 C. W. N. 602. 

3 Muttia v. Virammal (1887), 10 7 IV. of 1882. 

Mad. 283 ; Karpakambal Ammal v. 8 Act IV. of 1882, s. 2. 

Gana^athi Subbayyan (1882), 5 Mad. 9 See Lakshman Ramchandra JosU 

234 ; Bhagtrathi v. Ananfha Charia v. Satyabhamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494 ; 

(1893), 17 Mad. 268 ; M^wksh^ Achi Yamnabai v. Nanabhai (1910), 12 

v. Cfannappa Udayan (1901), 24 Mad, Bom. L. R. 1075. 

689, at p. 694; Adhiranee Narain 10 This includes coparcenary pro- 

Coomary v, Shona Make Pat Mahadai perty : Jayanti Subbiah v. Alameln 

(1876), ICata 365.. Mangamma (1902), 27 Mad. 45, at 

4 Erinda Chowflhrain v. Itadhica p. 49. 



CHAP. II.] PURCHASER. 01 

of several other specified villages in his possession as she may elect. A 
sells the specified villages to C, who buys in good faith, without notice of 
the agreement. B is dispossessed of Sultanpur. She has no claim on the 
villages transferred to C. 

Tho first portion of this section refers only to transfers made with the 
intention of defeating the right, but the latter portion, taken with the 
illustration, shows that it extends to other cases. 

The following propositions are, it is submitted, justified by 
the decisions : 

1. A purchaser would be bound by a decree charging the 
property with the maintenance, 1 except where the purchase 
bad been made in execution of a decree, which bound the 
widow, or which enforced a claim, which under the Hindu law 
takes precedence of a claim to maintenance. 2 

** When the maintenance has been expressly charged on the purchased 
property, it will be liable, although it be shown that there is property 
in the hands of the heirs sufficient to meet the claim." 3 

2. A purchaser would be bound by an agreement for main- 
tenance which satisfies the conditions required for a mortgage 
under the Transfer of Property Act, 4 or which has been followed 
by possession. 

He would also, it is submitted, be bound by an agreement, which did 
not satisfy such conditions, but which was enforceable against a transferee 
with notice of such agreement. 5 

3. When the maintenance is not charged on the property 
by a decree, or by an agreement equivalent to a mortgage, 
the purchaser is bound by the right to maintenance if tho 
transfer be made with the intention of defeating the right, 
aad he has notice of such intention. 6 

4. When the maintenance is not so charged, and there is 
no such intention, or if there be such intention, the purchaser 

1 See Kuloda, Prosad Chatterjee v. 8 Shamlal v. Banna (1882), 4 All. 
Jageshar Koer (1899), 27 Gale. 194 ; 296, at p. 300. 
Lak$hmanRamchandraJosMv.S.atya' 4 IV. of 1882, ss. 58, 59; ante, 
bhamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, at p. 89, note 2. 

p. 524. 5 See post, p. 92. 

2 Shamlal v. Banna (1882), 4 All. Act IV. of 1882, s. 39. See 
296, at p. 300. Such as a debt in- Lakshman J&amchandra JosH v. So,- 
curred before the creation of the tyabhamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, at 
charge by the person out of whose p. 524. This involves a fraudulent 
property the maintenance is payable, intention : Digambari Debt v. Dhan 
Gwr v$$ v. Kaumila (1883), 5 All. Kumari Btti (1906), 10 C. W, N. 1074. 
367. , 



02 



PURCHASER. 



[CHAP, 



has no notice thereof, a bond fide l purchaser is not affected by 
the claim, whether he has notice of such claim or not. 2 

In earlier cases it was held that a bond fide purchaser without mtice 
was not affected by the claim, but that a purchaser with notice of tsfep 
claim 3 or, at any rate, with notice of the existence of a claim likely to 
be unjustly impaired by the proposed transaction, 4 or, as it has been 
put in another case, 5 a notice that the right cannot be satisfied without 
recourse to the property purchased, was subject to it. 

There is also authority that the widow must exhaust her remedies 
against the heir, or, at any rate, prove that there is no property of the 
deceased in the hands of the heir before recovering against the purchaser. 6 
The inconvenience of this doctrine has been pointed out by the Bombay 
High Court.? 

The Hindu law places on the same footing all the so-called charges 
on the inheritance, 8 as- debts, 9 expenses of initiation of sons, 10 <tnd marriage 



1 Le. the property must be bought 
upon a rational and honest opinion 
that the sale was one which could 
be effected without any furtherance of 
wrong ; Lak&kman Ramchandra Joshi 
v. 8atyabJiamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, 
at p 524. 

3 Earn Kumvar v. Earn Dai (1900), 
22 All. 326 ; Bhartpur State, v. Gopal 
Dei (1901), 24 All 160. See JShamM 
v Banna (1882), 4 All. 296; Soarja 
Koer v. Nath Bulcsfi Singh (1884), 11 
Calc. 102 ; Johurra Bibee v. Sreegopal 
Misser (1876), 1 Calc. 470 ; Natdua* 
rammal v. Gopalakrishna (1879), 2 Mad. 
126, and cases ante, p. 89, notes 4, 5. 
There are observations in Amrita Lai 
Mitter v. ManicJe Lai Mullick (1900), 
27 Calc. 551, 4 C. W. N. 764, to the 
contrary effect, but that was a case 
of a transfer of an undivided share 
of the whole property. 

3 See Bhagdbati Dasi (Srimati) v. 
Kanailal Mitter (1872), 8 B. L. R. 
225; 17 W. R. C. R. 433, note. 
Adhiran.ee Narain Coomary v. Shona 
Malee Pat Mahadai (1876), 1 Calc. 
365, and cases there cited ; RacTtawa 
v. Shwayogapa (1893), 18 Bom. 679 ; 
Lafahman Ramchandra v. Sarasvati- 
bai (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 69 ; Ooluck 
Chunder JBose (Baboo) v. OhiUa Daye 
(Ranee) (1876), 25 W. R. C. R. 100 ; 
Heera LaU v. KouMah (Mussumat) 
(1867), 2 Agnu 42. {In the last case 
the transfer was in terms subject to 
a specified sum for the maintenance 
of the widow.) Any fact which 
would put the purchaser upon inquiry 



would amount to notice. Thus pos- 
session by the widow of the family 
dwelling-house or of other property 
may amount to notice. See Mama- 
nadan v. Mangammal (1888), 12 Mad. 
260, at p. 272; Imam v. Balamma 
(1889), 12 Mad. 334; TamwAai v. 
Nanabhai (1910), 12 Bom. L, R. 1075. 

4 LaJcshman Ramchandra Joshi v, 
Satyabhamdbai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, 
at p. 517. 

6 Ramanadan v. Rangammal (1889), 
12 Mad. 260, at p. 269. 

6 Adhiranee Narain Coomary v. 
Shona Make Pat Ma'hadai (1876), 1 
Calc. 365, at p. 377; Earn Ohurun 
Tewaree v. Jasooda Koonwer (1867), 
2 Agra. 134 ; contrd Goluck Chunder 
Bose (Baboo) v Ohilla Daye (Ranee) 
(1876), 25 W. R. C. R. 100. 

7 Laksliman JRamcTiandra Joshi v* 
Satydbhamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, 
at pp. 515, 520. 

8 Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i. 
chap. vhi. In Ehartpur State v. 
Gopal Dei (1901), 24 All 160, at 
p. 163, the Court said, "In fact, a 
widow's right to receive maintenance 
is one of an indefinite character, 
which, unless made a charge upon 
the property, by agreement or by 
decree of the Court, is only enforce- 
able like any other liability in respect 
of which no charge exists." 

9 "Mitakshara," chap, ii s. 11, 
para. 24; "Vyavahara Mayukha," 
chap. v. s. 4, paras. 12, 14, 16, 17, 19. 

10 " VyavaharaMayukha," chap, iv, 
s. 4, paras. 38-40; " Mitakshara," 



CHAP. II.] TRANSFER PENDING SUIT. 98 

of daughters. 1 It could scarcely be that a bond fide purchaser, even with 
notice of the existence of a claim in respect of any one of these so-called 
charges, should bear the burden of their payment. 2 In a case where the 
money had been raised by purchase for the purpose of paying any of these 
charges it would follow that the purchaser would be under no liability. 3 
Would it lie reasonable in any case, except where the transaction was 
intended to the knowledge of the purchaser to be a fraud upon the charge, 
to require a purchaser from an absolute owner to inquire as to the pur- 
poses for which the money was being raised ? Moreover, the texts give a 
charge on, the inheritance to wives as to widows, but a wife cannot enforce 
her maintenance against a purchaser from her husband. 4 

" If there is an ample estate out of which to provide for the widow. 
so that she may get her claim fixed and secured, or if, knowing of the 
proposed sale, she does not take any step to secure her own interest, no 
imputation of bad faith, or of abetting it, can be made against the pur- 
chaser of a portion of the joint property. If the widow, on the other hand, 
is not accepting support from the coparcener in satisf action of her claim ; 
if she lives apart, and the estate is small and insufficient, it is the vendee's 
duty before purchasing to inquire into the reason for the sale, and not by 
a clandestine transaction to prevent the widow from asserting her right 
against the intending vendor." 5 

A right of maintenance is not affected by a transfer 6 made Transfer or 
or a suit for partition brought 7 during the pendency of a suit peixdmgsuit, 
for maintenance, unless such transfer be effected for the purpose 
of paying off a debt, which has priority over the claim f oy 
maintenance. 8 

Where the suit for maintenance does not seek to charge specific 
property, the doctrine of Us pendens does not apply. 9 

An heir or coparcener, 10 or devisee, 11 or a purchaser with Possession of 

r f property by 

widow, 

ohap. i. s* 7, paras. 3-6 ; Cole- at p. 517. 

brooke's " Digest," bk. v. paras* 6 See Transfer of Property Act 

cxxiii., cxxv., cxxxii. (IV. of 1882), s. 52 ; Jogendra Chun* 

1 Colebrooke's "Digest," bk. v. der Ghose v. Fulkwnari Dassi (1899), 

para cxxiv. 27 Oalo. 77 ; S. C. sub nomine. Jogen- 

8 A creditor cannot follow the dro Ohunder Ghose v. Oanendra Nath 

assets of an estate into the hands of Sircar, 4 C. W. N. 254. See Amrita 

a bond fide purchaser. See Lakshman Lai Mitter v. ManicJo Lai Mullick 

Ramchandra v. Sarasvatibai (1875), (1900), 27 Calc. 551; 4 C. W. N. 764. 

12 Bom. H. C. 69, at p. 78, and cases 7 Ante, p. 79. 

there cited. 8 Dose Thimmanna Bhutia v. 

3 See Lakshman Ramchandra Joshi Krishna Tantri (1906), 29 Mad. 508 

v. Satydbhamdbai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, 9 MamJca Gramani v. Ellappa 

at p. 499. Ohetti (1896), 19 Mad. 271, see ante, 

* See Lakshman Ramchandra v. p. 79. 

Sarasvatibai (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 10 Yettawa v. Bhimangavda (1893), 

69, at p, 78. IS Bom. 452. 

f * Lafahman Ramchandra Joshi v. 1X Razabai v. Sadu (1871), 8 Bom. 

Satyatihamebai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, H. C. A. C. J. 98. 



SUIT. 



. II. 



Right agairst 
proceeds of 
sale. 



Suit for 
maintenance, 



Suits for 
arrears. 



notice of her claim and possession, 1 cannot oust -a widow from 
property which is liable for her maintenance, without securing 
her maintenance. 

The possession would, it is submitted, be in this case evidence of an 
arrangement charging the property. 2 

A widow may enforce her right of maintenance against 
the proceeds of the property in the hands of the heir. 3 

Where property held on mortgage has been allotted to a widow for 
her maintenance, and the mortgage has been paid off, the right of the widow 
attaches to the money. 4 

As to the allotment of a share to a mother or grandmother 
in lieu of her maintenance in case of partition between her sons 
or grandsons, see post, pp. 333 et seq, 

A widow may, for the purpose of securing her maintenance, 
sue to compel the persons in possession of the estate, out of which 
the maintenance is payable, to give security for the due pay- 
ment of her maintenance, or to have it made a charge upon 
the estate, and may, in a proper case, obtain an injunction to 
restrain them from wasting or alienating the estate. 5 If she 
does not wish for such charge, she may sue for maintenance 
already due, 6 or for a declaration that it is payable, or she may 
combine a claim for arrears with a prayer for a charge or for 
security. 

Although a Court may award arrears, 7 a decree for arrears is not of 



1 Imam v. jBalamma (1889), 12 
Mad. 334 ; Rachawa v. Shivayogappa 
(1&93), 18 Bom. 67 

2 Ante, p. 89. 

8 See Venkatammal v. Andyappa 
(1882), Mad. 130, at p. 135; Ham 
Gfamtn Teivaree v. Jasooda Xoonwer 
(1867), 2 Agra. 134; LaksJiman Ram- 
chandra Joshiv. Satyabhamabai (18*71), 
2 Bom. 494, at p. 519. 

4 Gambhirmal v. Hamirmal (1996), 
21 Bom. 747. 

6 Ramanadan v. Rangammal 
(1889), 12 Mad. 260, at pp. 267, 
268 ; Mahalakshmamma Garu (Sri 
Maniyam) v. Venkataratnamma Garu 
(Sri Maniyam) (1882), 6 Mad. 83. 
See Brinda Chowdhrain v. Radhika 
Chowdhrain (1885), 11 Calc. 492, at 
p. 494. 

Pirthee Singh (Raja) v< Rajkooer 



(Rani) (1873), I. A. Sup. Vol. 203 ; 

12 B. L. R. 238 ; 20 W. R. 0. R. 21 ; 

Venkopadhya v. Kavari Hengusu 
(1864), 2 Mad. H. C. 36 ; Sakwarbai 
v. Shavanjee Raje (1864), 1 Bom. 
H. C. 194 ; Narbadabai v. Mahadeo 
Narayan (1880), 5 Bom. 99. Seo 
Bhartpur State v. Gopal Dei (1901), 
24 All. 160, at p. 163. 

7 Pirthee Singh (Rajah) v. Raj 
Kower (Ranee) (1873), I. A. Sup. 
Vol. 203, at p. 211 ; 12 B. L. R. 238, 
at p. 248 ; 20 W. R. C. R. 21, at p. 
25 ; VenJcopadhyaya v. Kavari Sengusu 
(1864), 2 Mad. H. C. 36; Subbramania 
Mudaliar v. Kahani Ammal (1873), 
7 Mad. H. C. 226 ; Mandodari Debt 
v. Joynarayan Pakrasi (1833), Sir- 
car's " Vyavastha Darpana," p. 381 ; 
Montriou's "Cases of Hindu Law," 
pp, 408-412. 



CHAP, n.] sun 1 * 95 

right, but is in the discretion of the Court, 1 and depends upon her wants 
and exigencies, 2 Where the person claiming maintenance has been sup- 
ported, without having incurred any expense or liability, the Court might 
well exercise its discretion by refusing to grant arrears. 

The Court should discourage a multiplicity of suits for the maintenance Future 
of one person, and should, if possible, where necessary, make a decree for mi ntenance * 
future maintenance, 3 

The widow is not entitled to sue for possession of the property, 4 

A wife, who is entitled to separate maintenance, has 
apparently similar remedies. 

When maintenance is fixed by an agreement, which is Enforcement 
equivalent to a mortgage, it may be enforced by a suit under agreemen ' 
the Transfer of Property Act. 5 

The widow is entitled to sue all or any of the heirs in posses- Parties to suit, 
sion of property subject to her maintenance. 

When the right of maintenance has been made a charge by agreement 
or decree tho claimant may recover the amount from any person holding 
any portion of the property liable. 7 The person paying it would have a 
right of contribution against other persons liable therefor. 8 

The right to sue for maintenance commences when there when right -to 
has been a wrongful withholding of payment of the proper 
amount. It accrues from -time to time according to the 
wants and exigencies of the person claiming to be main- 
tained. 9 

This withholding may be proved otherwise than by a claim 



1 ftctghubans 'Knnwar v. Magwant v. Makhanlat Dutt (1872), 9 B. L. B. 

A'wiwor (J899), 21 AH. 183, II, at p. 27 ; 17 W, B. C. B. 4, 

a Rcwgubai v. Subaji RamcJiandra 7 Rtmchandra DifaUt v. Savitnbat 

(1012) 30 Bom. 383; 17 Bom. L, R. (1867), 4 Bom. H. 0. A. 0. 73, ex- 

207. plained in Lafokman Ramchandra v. 

3 See Ldkshnan RamcJiandra JosU Sarasvatibai (1875), 12 Bom. H. 0. 

v. Hatyabhamdbai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, 09, at p. 73, and in Nistarim Da 8 i 

at pp. 497, 498 ; Vishnu SJwmbJiog v. (3. M.) v. MakUnlal Dutt (1872), 9 B. 

Mmjamma (1884), 9 Bom, 108, at L. B. 11, at p. 27 ; 17 W. B. C. B. 4. 
p. HO, 8 RamcJiandra DtfalvU v. Savitribai 

* Oomrao Single v. Man Konwer (1867), 4 Bom. H. C. A. 0. 73. 
(Musftt.) (1867), 2 Agra 136. As to 9 Narayanrao RamcTiandra Pant 
her right to remain, in possession, v. Mamabai (1879), 6 I. A. 114, at 
soo ante, pp. 93, 94. p. H8 ; 3 Bom. 415, at p. 420 ; 6 C. 

IV. of 1882, ss. 58, 88, 100. L. B. 162, at p. 106 ; Rmngrixri v. 

Ramchandra frkM v. Savitribai Subaji RamcJiandra (1912), 36 Bom, 
(1867), 4 Bom. H. 0, A. 0, 73, as 383 ; 14 Bom. L. B. 267, 
explained int Nistarini Daai (B, M.) 



9S 



LIMITATION, 



[CHAP, ii. 



and refusal. 1 Past non-payment is primti facie evidence of such with- 
holding. 3 

The omission to claim maintenance apart from the eff ect of the law 
of limitation will not prejudice the claimant when he is obliged from his 
wants or exigencies to demand it. 3 

Limitation ot' A suit for arrears of maintenance must be brought within 

suit for arrears ., ,-,,. -.,-, 11* 

of mainten- twelve yeaiu from the time when the arrears are payable. 4 

ance. 

Thus past maintenance for twelve years, 5 and no more, can be recovered 
by suit. 

Limitation of A suit for a declaration of a right to maintenance must 
deUirution, b$ brought within twelve years from the time when the right 
in denied. 6 

Apparently when the right has been denied, and twelve years has 
elapsed from such denial, the right to maintenance is barred. 7 



Fixing o 
amount. 



Where the parties do not agree, it is for the Court to fix 
the rate of maintenance payable. 8 

As to the principles upon which maintenance should be fixed, see 
ante, p. 87. 

The Judicial Committee will not interfere with the exercise of the 
discretion by the Courts in India in fixing maintenance, except where 
strong grounds exist, 9 



1 Malhkarjuna Prasada Naidu V. 
Durga Prasada Naidu (1894), 17 
Mad. 362 ; S. C. on appeal (1900), 
$7 1. A. 151 ; 24 Mad. 147 ; 5 C. W. N. 
74 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 945 ; Sethamma v. 
Subbarayadu (1893), 18 Mad. 403; 
Motilftl Prannath v. KasM (Eai} 
(1892), 17 Bora. 45 ; Parvahbai v. 
CJtatru (1911), 3C Bom. 131 ; 13 Bom. 
L R 1023. See Narayanrao Ram- 
cliandra Pant v. Ramabai (1879), 
I A. 114, at p. 119; 3 Bom. 415, at 
p 421. 

a Mallikarjuna Pra$ada Nayudu 
(Raja Jarlagadda) v. Durga Prasada 
Nayudu, (Raja Yarlagadda) (1900), 
27 L A. 151 ; 24 Mad. 147 ; 5 C. W. 
N. 74 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 945. 

3 Siddessury Dossee v. Janurdan 
Sarkar (1902), 29 Calc. 557, at p/ 
572 ; 6 G. W. N. 530, at p. 545. See, 
however, Abbaku v. Ammu Shet- 
tati (1868), 4 Mad. H. C. 137. 

* Act IX. of 1908, Sch. I, art. 128. 

5 Sefe Sn&bramama Mudaliar v. 
Kaliani Aminal (1873), 7 Mad. H, C. 



226 ; Venkopadfiyaya v. Kavari 
Hengwu (1864), 2 Mad. H. C. 30. 

6 Act IX of 1908, Seh. L, arts. 
129, 132. 

7 CWiaganlal v. Bapubhat (1880), 
5 Bom 68. See Jin v. Ramji (1879), 
3 Bom 207. 4 

8 Nubo Gopal Roy v. Amrit Moyee 
Dossee (Sreemutty) (1875), 24 W. R. 
G. R. 428 ; Bhedoo (Mussummaut) v, 
Phool CUund (1824), 3 Ben Sel. R. 
223 (new editidh, 298); Nistarini 
Dasi (S. M.) v. Makhanlal Dutt 
(1872), 9 B L. R. 11, at p* 28. 

* Collector of Madura v. Mootioo 
Ramctlinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M, 
IK A. 397, at p. 447 ; 1 B L. R. P. 0. 
1, at p. 20 ; 10 W. R. P. C. 17, at p, 
25; NittoTcissoree Dossee (Sreemutty) 
v.^Jogendro Nauth MulUcJc (1878), 5 
I. A. 55, at p. 56; KacU Kaliyana 
Rengappa Kalaklca TJiola- Udayar v. 
Kacbi Tuva JRengappa Kalaklca, Thola 
Vdayar (1905), 32 L A. 261 ; 28 
Mad. 508; 10 C. W. H, 95; 7 Bom. 
L, R, 907. 



CHAP. II.] ALTERATION. 97 

The proper course for a Court in ordering maintenance is to make it Duty of Court, 
a charge upon specific property, 1 or to set apart a sum of money sufficient 
to yield the required allowance, and, if necessary, sell a part of the estate 
for that purpose. a In some cases the Court might be satisfied with security 
given by the reversioners. 

The allowance fixed by the Court for maintenance should cover all 
necessary expenses for maintenance and house rent. 3 

It is better to fix an annual sum, and not a share of the income of the 
estate. 4 

It has also been held that " in decrees where maintenance is awarded, 
Courts should insert words which would enable them on application to 
set aside or modify their orders as circumstances might require*" 6 Such 
a course would, it is submitted, invite frequent litigation. 

The amount of maintenance fixed by a decree may beAiterat-nof 
altered by a decree in a subsequent suit, where the circumstances 
render an alteration necessary. 

Such modification " cannot be made in a proceeding in 
execution of a decree, unless the terms of the decree are such 
as to permit of suck modification. 6 

As to the loss of the right by remarriage, see post, pp. 369, 370. 

Maintenance may be cancelled if the wife or widow has become 
unchaste, 7 or where, in the case of a wife, the circumstances have so changed 
that she should be called upon to return to her husband's house. The 
rate of maintenance may be iminished when there has been such a change 
in the circumstances of the wife or widow, or of the husband, or person 
liable for the maintenance, 8 such change not arising from any fault of his 
own. 9 Except where provision is. made in the decree f6r that purpose, 

< Mansha Devi v.Jiwan Mai (ISSty, Ko&r v. Court of Wards (1872), 18 

6 All. 617, at p. 621 ; Mahatok- W. K C. B. 474. 

slvmamma Garu (Sri Mamyam) v. 7 Kandasami Pillai v. Murugammal 

Venkataratnamma Garu (Sri M aniyam) (1895), 19 Mad. 6; Vishnu Shambhog 

(1882), 6 Mai. 83. See Vrandavan- v. Manjamma (1884), 9 Bom. 108, at 

das Ramdas v. Yamunabai (1875), 12 p. 110. See ante, pp. 78, 82. 

Bom. H. 0. 229. 8 Nubo Gopal Roy v. Amnt Mome 

a , See Mundoodaree Dabee (Sree Dossee (Sreemutty) (1875), 24 W.* B. 

Moottee) v. Joynarain Puckrasee C. B. 428; Gopikabai v. Dattatraya 

(1801), F. Macn. Cons. 60; Seeb (1900), 24 Bom. 386; Venkanna v. 

Chunder Bose "v. Gooroopersaud Bose, Aitamma (1889), 12 Mad. 183 ; Ft- 

F. Macn. Cons. 63. jaya v. Sripatht (1884), 8 Mad. 94 ; 

3 Mansha Devi v.Jiutan Mai (1884), Sidlingapa v. Sidaw (1878), 2 Bom. 

6 All. 617, at p. 620. ^ 624, at p. 630 ; JRuJca Bai v. Ganda 

* Jhunna v. fiamsarup (1880), 2 Bai (1878), 1 All. 594. 

AIL 777.- 9 In Ramlcattee Koer v. Court of 

s Gopikabai v. Dattatraya (1900), 24 Wards (1872), 18 W. B. C. B. 474, 

Bom. 386, at p. 389 ; 2 Bom. L. B. it was held that the proper course is 

191. to apply for a review of judgment, 

6 Ranmakangji BJiagwateangji (Ma- but it is submitted that the pro- 

harana 8M) v. Kundarikuwur (Bai visions of the Civil Procedure Code 

SM) (1902), 26 jBom. 707; 4 Bom. (Act V. of 1908), s. 114, Sched. L, 

Xt. B. 531. See 'Gopikabai v. Datta- order xlvi rule 1, do not permit such 

traya (1900), 24 Bom, 386 ; Ramkattee application. 

H.L, H 



98 MAGISTRATES' ORDER. [CHAP. n. 

an order for maintenance cannot be cancelled or diminished in proceedings 
in execution. 1 

The rate may be increased if the cost of food has become greater or the 
profits of the estate of the husband have materially increased. 2 

Where the circumstances have changed, the Court can alter the amount 
of maintenance fixed by an arrangement. 3 

Where the alteration in circumstances had arisen from "the act of 
God," and not from the fault of the owner, maintenance chargeable on 
an estate by a will can apparently be reduced, 4 

Execution of Where a decree directs the payment of future maintenance 

ecree " from time to time, it can be enforced by execution, 5 and for 

the purposes of limitation the decree is as to each year's annuity 

to be regarded as speaking on the day* upon which from that 

year it became operative, 6 

A decree which merely declares a right of maintenance is not capable 
of execution. 7 

A decree declaring a right of maintenance out of property which has 
been transferred, cannot be executed personally against the transferee 
after the property has passed from him. 8 

Remedy in A Hindu wife can also recover maintenance from her 
husband under the provisions of Chap. XXXVI. of the Criminal 
Procedure Code. 9 The magistrate's order does not interfere 
with the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. 10 



* A&utosh Bawrjee v. LukUmom 

8Jvri) v. Kuwfankuwar (Bai Dd>ya (1891), 19 Calo. 139 ; Asad Ali 

Shri) (1902), 26 Bom. 307 ; 4 Bom. MoUah v. Haidar Ali (1910), 38 Calc. 

L. R. 53L 13. 

8 Balaam Ammal v. Vijayamachi LaMhmibai Bapuji Oka v. Mad" 

Reddiar (1899), 22 Mad. 175; Sree- havrav Bapuj% Oka (mi), 12 Bom. 65. 

ram Bftuttacharjee v. PuddomoJchee 7 Venkanw v. Aitamma (1889) 

DeUa (1868), 9 W. R C. R. 152 ; 12 Mad 183. 

Sidlingapa v. Sidava (1878), 2 Boin. Dharam Chand v. Janft'ttSSS) 

G24, at p. 630. 5 All. 389. > * - 

3 Eajeyider Natli Roy v. Putto Soon- Act V. of 1898. 

dery Dassee (S. Jtf, Ranee) (1879), 5 10 Deraje Mahnga Natta v. Marati 

a k* R - ia Kwtn (1907), 30 Mad. 400. A suit 

4 See Grees Chund Hoy (Maliara- will not lie to restrain such pro- 
jah) v. SumWioo Chund Roy (1835), 5 coedings. Hid. 

W. R. P. C. 98. 



CHAPTER IIL 

RELATIONSHIP OF PARENT AND CHILD, AND ADOPTION. 

THE only children now recognized by the general Hindu law what are 1 
as legitimate, are those who are born during the existence SSSS^ 
of a lawful marriage between their parents, 1 and also sons who 
have been adopted according to the dattaJca form. 2 

" The legal presumption in favour of a child born in his father's house Presumption 
of a mother lodged and apparently treated as a wife, treated as a legitimate ^ a ^ le lt:1 ' 
child by his father, and whose legitimacy is disputed after the father's 
death, is one safe and proper to be made, and the opposing case should 
be put to strict proof." 3 

As to customs of legitimising children by subsequent marriage, see 
ChucJcrodhuj Thakoor v. Beer Chunder Joolraj (1864), 1 W, B, C, R. 194 ; 
Chinnammal v. Varadarajuln (1891), 15 Mad, 307. 

Children born out of wedlock, although illegitimate, have illegitimate 
rights of maintenance, 4 and, if they are not members of one of chlldren - 
the three regenerate classes, illegitimate sons of Sudras possess 
rights of inheritance under the Mitakshara law, 5 

In the country subject to the Mithila school of law, a son 
may be adopted according to the Kritrima form. 6 

1 Pedda Amani v. Zemindar of vahara Mayukha," chap. iv. s. 9, 

Marungayuri (1874), 1 I. A. 282, at para. 41 ; Colebrooke's " Digest," 

pp. 292, 293; 14 B. L. B, 115, at vol. in. p. 160. This is apparently 

pp. 122, 123. See Act L of 1872, s. the case, but the system of infant 

112, which under the guise of a rule marriage prevents the question arising, 

of evidence has practically the effect except perhaps in the case of widows, 

of declaring the law. TirloTe Natk 2 JKungama v. AtcTiama (1846), 4 

Sliukul v. Lachmin Kunwari (Musam- M. I. A. i, at p. 96 ; 7 W. B. P. 0. 

mat) (1903), 30 I. A. 152 ; 25 All. 57, at p. 59 ; ThuJcoo Baee BUde v. 

403 ; 7 C. W, N. 617 ; Narendra Ruma Baee BUde (1824), 2 Borr. 

Natb Pahari v. Earn Qdbind PaJiari 446, at p. 456. 

(1901), 29 I. A. 17; 29 Gale. Ill; s Ramamani Ammal v. Kulanthai 

6 C. W. N. 146. Sir G. D. Ban- Natcliear (1871), 14 M. I. A. 346, at 

erjee ("Law of Marriage," 3rd cd., pp. 365, 367; 17 W. R. C. R. 1, at 

pp. 165, 166) contends that the Hindu p. 7. See Gopafasami Chetti v. 

law only recognizes as legitimate those Arunaclielam Chetti (1903), 27 Mad. 32. 

wlno ' are begotten in wedlock, see 4 Post, pp. 206, 207. 

" Manu/' chap. x. para. 166 ; " Mitak- 5 Post, pp. 382, 383. 

shara," chap. i. s. 11, para. 2 ; " Vya- Poet, pp. 157-160. 



100 



__., 
SONS - 



[CHAP, m. 



There i nothing to prevent a Hindu adopting a Bon or 
I th / sense that a soa can be adopted by 

L>, i.e. by treating him as a son, and givmg or 
devising property to him, but in that case no nghts of m- 
hUe, or of performing religious ceremorues, are created 
by the so-called adoption. The relationship IE purely con- 
tractual, and is determinate at the opton of ather of he 
contracting parties. A son so taken is called a yaUU putra* 

Sons MOO.. In ancient times the Hindu law recognised the Mowing descriptions 

mzed in O f sons 2 as legitimate sons, viz. : 

aneient times. Qr ^^^ ^ by a wif e. . 



application, contends' that there is no reason why it should not 
be now applied. 

4. Kanim, or son of an unmarried woman. 

5. Gudhaja, or secretly bom son of an adulterous Wiie. 

6 Pau^, or son of a twice married woman. Tks ^lud*d not 
only the son of a woman who had gone through the ceremony of marriage, 
but also the son of a woman who had conneotion^with a man. _ 

i See mmadm Doss v. BuUntoer in certain places, such as Oriesa, by 
* L A. 85 , 3 B. L. virtue of 



ta Southern India is p- 
narentlv manasuwtra, see AVhcaMri 
rkLto^ (1863), 1 Mad. 
H. 0. 393, or abyytmana yvtrum (son 
of affection) 

* The order m which the several 
kinds of sons are placed by various 
authors varies, but necessarily all 
concur in giving preference to the 





Sarbadikhan s Hmdu Law of 
heritance, P- . 

See W* ^* v. 
XoZZ, W- B- 18 *' P- 1 "- 

' FeW Narasimha Appa, Bow 
Bahadur (*& T. 7eto 



> Wilson's " Glossary," p. 298. 
Iit appointment, a delegated 
duty or office, Wilson's "Glossary," 
38^ 

' w'ilson's " Glossary," p. 380. 
This class of sou apparently existed 



R^Kuer(Babu^ . 
(1916)) ip a tnaL.J.581. 

ffi*fc (**> "") ^ <* 
(1875), 2 1. A. 163; 15 
23 W. B. C. E. 309. 

s Law of Adoption," 2nd ed., 
p. 166o. 



. 
190, 



CHAP. III.] DATTAKA SON, 101 

7. 8akod7ia t or son of a pregnant bride. 

8. NisJiada, 1 or son of a member of one of the regenerate castes by a 
Sudra woman. 2 

9. DattaJca, or son given in adoption. 

10. Kritrima, or son made, i.e. where a man without parents accepts 
a proposal that he should be taken in adoption. 

11. Kritaka, or son bought. 3 

12. Apaviddha, or son forsaken by his parents, and taken in adoption, 

13. Svayandattaka, or son self-given. The only difference between 
this son and the Kritrimq, son seems to be that in the former case the offer 
comes from the adoptee, and in the latter case it comes from the adopter. 

Of these the only sons that are not recognized by Hindu law are 
the Aurasa son and the Dattaka son. According to the Mithila school 
a Kritrima son can be taken in adoption. 4 Adoption in this form is 
based upon recent works, 5 and is not referable to the ancieflt practice of 
taking Kritrima sons, 

ADOPTION AOCOEDING TO THE DATTAKA FOEM. 
An adopted son is a person capable of being adopted, 6 who Definition oi 
is given by a person competent to give, 7 to a person competent 
to receive in adoption, 8 and who has been so given and received 
in the way prescribed by Hindu law. 9 

The adoption of a son is a matter of religious obligation to a childless Necessity for 
Hindu, who has no prospect of procreating male issue, 10 although it may "^ I0a * 
generally happen that adoptions originate " in the ordinary human desire 
for perpetuation of family properties and names." " It is said that 

1 kft, outcast. and a married man) as an adopted 

2 " Saudra is the son of a twice- son is sufficient to constitute a valid 
born by a Sudra wife : the names adoption. 

Nishada and Parasava are applied to 10 See Sootroogun Sutputty v. Sa- 

such sons of a Kshatnya and a Brah- litra Dye (1834), 2 Knapp, 287 ; 

mana respectively ; by some to the 5 W. R. P. C. 109 ; Rajendro Narain 

latter" Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," Lahoree v. Saroda Soon&wree Dabee 

p< 23. (1871), 15 W. R. C. R. 548 ; Saroda- 

' See Yachereddy Chinna Bassava- soondery Dossee (8. M.) v. Tincowry 

pa v. YacHereddy Gowdapa (1835), 5 Nundy (1863), 1 Hyde, 223, at p. 249 ; 

W R P. C, 114. Huradhun Moolcurjia v. Mufooranath 

Post, pp. 157-160. Mookurjia (1849), 4 M. I. A. 414, at 

Post, p. 158. PP- 425, 426 ; 7 W. R. P. C. 71 ; 

Post pp. 138-149. Raghuwda (Sri) v. Brozo Kishoro (Sri) 

Post, pp. 134-137. (1376), 3 I. A. 154, at p. 177 ; 25 

Post, pp, 103-134. W. R. C. R. 291, at p 295. 

Post, pp. 149-155. In Chiman u See Gurulin#aswami (Sri Balusu) 

vHmto?wZ(1913),40LA. 156; v. MamalaksTmamma (Sri Balusu). 

40 Calc. 879; 17 0. W. N. 855; 15 Radha Mohun v. Hardai $iU (1899), 

Bom. L. R. 646, the Privy Council 26 I. A. 113, at p. 135; 22 Mad. 

upheld a custom among the Agarwal 398, at p. 414 ; 21 All. 460, at p. 

Banias of Zina that an unequivocal 477 ; 3 0. W. N. 427, at p. 442 5 1 

^olar^ti^n followed by treatment of Bom, L. R. 226. 

the person /(ia, that oase an orphan 



102 



MOTIVE. 



[CHAP. 



originally the motives for adoption were secular, and that subsequently 
religious and secular motives were mixed. 1 Among some castes the 
motive is purely secular. 2 

As to the origin of the practice of adoption, see Sarkars Law of 
Adoption," Lectures I., II. Arundadi Ammal v. Kuppammd (1867), 
3 Mad. H. C. 283, at p. 284. 

Except where custom has varied the law, Jains are governed in matters 
of adoption by the ordinary rules of Hindu law. 3 The Dattaka son is the 
only adopted son recognized by them, 4 but as they do not accept the 
Hindu doctrine as to the spiritual efficacy of sons, they are influenced only 
by secular considerations in adopting. 5 

The motive for the adoption does not affect its validity. 

The fact that an adoption is made for the purpose of defeating an 
alienation will not affect its validity. 7 

As to the motives of a widow for an adoption, see post, p. 118. 

A family, 8 or caste, 9 custom prohibiting adoption is valid. 

The burden of proving such custom lies on the person alleging its 

existence. 10 

Agreement An agreement not to adopt would not apparently invalidate 
not to adopt. an a( i ption made in breach of it, but so far as property the 

subject of such agreement is concerned, it might bind the parties 

to it. It would not, under any circumstances, bind any one 

except the actual parties to it. 11 



Jains. 



Motive for 
adoption. 



custom H>r 



i See Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," 
pp. 25, 42, 113, 142, 14=3. 

* See Bhala Nahana v. Parbhu 
Haffi (1877), 2 Bom. 67. 

* Amava v. Mahadgauda (1896), 
22 Bom, 416, at p. 418 ; Bhagvandas 
Tejmal v. Rajmal (1873), 10 Bom. 
H. C. 241. See Rup Chand (Lala) v. 
Jambu Parshad (1910), 37 I. A. 93 ; 
32 All. 247; 14 C. W. N. 545; 12 
Bom. L. E. 402. 

* See Lakhmi Chand v. Gatto Bai 
(1886), 8 All. 319, at p. 321. 

* See Bhagvandas Tejmal v. Rajmal 
(1873), 10 Bom. H. C. 241, at p. 263. 

6 See Rawbhat v. Ldkshman Chin- 
toman Mayalay (1881), 5 Bom. 630, 
at p. 635. 

7 Ibid. See Labshmana Rau v. 
LMhmi Ammal (1881), 4 Mad. 160, 



8 Fmfchdra Deb Baikal v. Rajeswar 
Das (1885), 12 L A. 72 ; 11 Gale. 
463 ; &tebwttt 8inffh (Rvjak) v. Ram 
Churn Mujmoqfar, Bem & D. A. 
1850, p. 20. 



9 See Vandravan Jekisan (Paid) v. 
Mamlal Ohunilal (Patd) (1891), 16 
Bom. 470 ; Verdbhai Ajubhai v. Hi- 
rdba (Bai) (1903), 30 I. A. 234 ; 27 
Bom. 492 ; 7 C. W. N. 716 ; 5 Bom. 
L. R. 134. 

10 Verabhai AjubTiai v. Hiraba, (Bai) 
(1903), 30 L A. 234; 27 Bom. 492 ; 
7 C. W. N. 716 ; 5 Bom. L. R. 134. 

11 Surya Rao Bahadur (Sri Raja 
Rao VenJcata MaTiapati) v. Gavigad* 
Jiara Rama Rao Bahadur (Sri Raja 
Rao VenJcata Mahapati) (1886), 13 
I. A. 97; 9 Mad. 499. Although 
this case was governed by the Mitak- 
shara law, and under that law the 
son of one of the parties had acquired 
a right to the property by birth, the 
reason given for the decision that 
the effect of the terms of the arrange- 
ment would be to alter the law of 
descent would apply equally to a 
case governed by the Bengal school. 
See also Rajender Dutt v. Sham Clmnd 
Mitt&r (1880), 6 Calc. 106. 



CHAP. III.] 



WHO MAY TAKE, 



103 



80 far as self- acquired property is concerned, or in cases to which the 
Bengal school of law is applicable, a father might by a valid gift over, in 
ease of a contemplated adoption by his son, put pressure upon such son 
to prevent or control his adopting, but the adoption would not be invalidated 
thereby. 1 

The fact that au adoption was made in breach of an agreement to Broach of 
adopt another boy, which was not carried out, does not render the agreement, 
adoption invalid. 3 

A girl cannot bo given or taken in adoption. 3 Adoption of 

girl. 

Among the Namlmdri Brahmins on the west coast of India, there is Nambudris, 
in force a practice of giving a (laughter in what is called sarvasvadhanaw, 
marriage, in order that the son born of hor should be affiliated as the son 
of the father giving her. 4 Ho does not inherit in the family of his 
father so long as other sons exist. 5 

Atf to the adoption of daughters by daucing-girls, see post, pp. 163, 164, 



WlIO MAY TAKE IN ADOPTION, 

A malo Hindu who ban not. a lugitimato or validly 7 who may 
udoptod 8 son, BOU'H Bon, or son'H HOII'B son in oxintonco and adopt * 
capable of inboriting, may take a son in adoption, UU!OHH bo bo 
mentally incapable of undemanding tbo nature of the act. 9 

1 Hco llurrosoo'nd&ry (Itawc) v. 
Kixtomuth Roy ((Jowar) (1841), 
Fulton, 393. 

3 ttUittnwdooRiinQalleddy v, Achum- 
0tJ(!M08), 2 Strange li. JU 115. 

a (JttHgnbni v. ylna/it (1888), 13 
Botu. <MK) j Nurtiinsjh Nuraito v. #/tJ- 
fiut Jkrft VV. It 1804, p, 10 J-, com- 
menting (at p. 1JM) on Nowab Hat, 
v. JlugawuttGn Koomr (1835), *> Bt*n. 
8(4, It 5 (2nd ud,, p. 4) ; ** Vyava- 
hara Mayukha," chap, iv, s. 5, para. 
1 j W, Macnaghton's " Hindu Law," 
voL i. p, 102 ; Cotobrooko's u Digont," 
voL iii. p. 493. Nanda Fandita 

(** Dattaka Mimaasa,** a. 7, para. 1, (1872), L A* Sup. vol. 131; 11 
16, 17* 18-39) arguftfl that daughter* B. L. It 391 ; 10 W, K. 0. It 12 ; 
cam foo afliliatod, but, as pointed Mohesh Narain MoonsH v. Taruck 
out in Sarkar's ** Law of Adoption," Nath Moitra (1892), 20 I A. 30 ; 20 
pp. 144, 145, his views have not been Oaic, 487 ; SudanunA MofM>putlur v* 
accepted by Hindufi. JioHomaUee (18(13), Marsh, 317 ; 2 

* 8w> Vwfud&wxn v. Hcxvfekvry of Ntnfa Hay, 206. 
(1887), 11 Mad. 157, at pp. 102, 103, * Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i. 

s Kvmardn v. Narayanan (I88(i), p. 78; W Maonaghton's "Hindu 
0Mad.2(KK I^w," vol. il p, 200; "Battaka 

4 Joy Chundro Raw v. tthyrub Mimansa," s. 1, paras. 13, 14 ; ** Dat- 
C&toWiw fom, Beau D. A. 1840, p. taka Ohandrika," s. 1, para. 6 ; Colo- 
401 j Xtango Bakiji v* Mudiye$$a brookc* u l>IgC8t," vol. Hi, pn, 20^ 

23 Ifom, jMKIb & P' 803; 



v. Jivctji 
(1800), 25 Bom. 306, at p, 311; 2 
Bom. L. E. 1101; "Dattoka. Mi- 
mansa," s. 1, para. 13; "Dattaka 
Ohandrika," H. 1, pani. (>. 

7 An invalid adoption cannot in- 
fluence the validity of a subsequent 
adoption, which would otherwise, bo 
legal, *Sarkar 7 n "Law of Adoption,'* 
p. 189. 

8 RwnfjtuMi v. AtcMma, (184<J)> 4 
M. I. A. 1, at p. 102 ; 7 W. E. P. 0. 
C7, at p. 61 ; Manwbai v. Ray a, 

), 22 Bom. 482; tiopee Loll v. 



104 WHO MAY TAKE, [CHAP. Ill, 

The existence of any other descendant is not a bar to an adoption. 1 
Apparently & Hindu who hag given his only son in adoption can adopt 
a son. 3 

Pregnancy of It is immaterial whether the adoptive father be hopeless of 
W1 *' issue or not. The pregnancy of his wife does not, -whether he 

be, or be not, ignorant of it, prevent a Hindu from adopting, 3 
and the adoption is not invalidated by the child of which the 
wife of the adopter is pregnant at the time of the adoption 
turning out to be a male. 4 

incapacity of If the son be permanently incapable of performing religious 
rites by reason of congenital blindness, deafness, dumbness, 
impotency, lameness, virulent leprosy, insanity, idiocy, or from 
any other reason, which involves an incapacity to inherit, 5 
he may be treated for this purpose as non-existent. 6 

where son has There is authority that when a son absolutely renounces 

woriSfy affairs; the world and all property, and enters a religious order, as by 
becoming a sannyqsi, ascetic, or fakir, his existence is not an 
impediment to an adoption by his father, 7 

It has been suggested 8 that this question may be affected by Act XXI. 
of 1850, but it is submitted that there is not in this case a question of a 
" forfeiture of rights or property/* or impairing or affecting any right of 
inheritance ce by reason of his renouncing, ~or having been excluded from 
the communion of any religion, or being deprived of caste," 

LOSS of caste, Where a son, natural or adopted, became an outcast, or 
etc * renounced the Hindu religion* the Hindu law 9 permitted an 

1 W. Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," 212 ; W. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 
vol. i. p. 66, note. vol. L p. 66, note ; Battigan on 

2 See Gundingaswami (Sri Balusu} Adoption, p. 10. 

v. JRamala&sTimamma (Sri Balusu), 7 Punjab Records, 1875, p. 144. 

JRadJia Mohim v. ffardai JBibi (1899), This does not apply to modern Byra- 

26 I. A. 113, at p. 142 ; 22 Mad. 398, gees who are not ascetics, Teeluk 

at p. 421 ; 21 All. 460, at p. 485 ; Chunder v. SJiama Churn Prokash 

3 C. W. N. 427, at p. 447; 1 Bom. (1864), 1 W. B. C. B. 209; Jagan- 

L. B. 226. nath Pal v. Bidyanund (1868), 1 B. 

3 NagabJiushanam v, Seshammagaru L. B. A. C. 114 ; 10 W. B. 0. B. 172 ; 
(1881), 3 Mad. 180 ; Daulut Ram v. Khoodeeram Chatterjee v. MooJcUnee 
Ram Lai (1907), 29 All. 310. Boistdbee (1871), 15 W. B. C. B. 197. 

4 Hanmanl Ramchan&ra v. Mima- 8 Sarkar's u Law of Adoption," p. 
cJiarya (1887), 12 Bom. 105. As to 196. 

the effect of the birth of a son after Sutherland's " Synopsis " (Stokes* 

an adoption, see post, p. 187. edition), p. 664 ; W. Macnaghten's 

5 Post, pp. 370-372. Hindu Law," vol. ii. p. 200, note ; 
c Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. i. Steelo, 42, 181 ; Strangc's " Hindu 

p. 77 ; Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," Law," vol. i. p. 77. 
p. 190; Sutherland's "Synopsis," p. 



CHAP. III.] MISSING SON* 105 

adoption, but tho effect of Act XXL of 1850 is to prevent the 
natural or previously adopted son from being ousted from any 
of his legal rights. 1 

When the question as to the validity of such an adoption shall arise, 
it may be that " the Courts would refuse to recognize an adoption which 
could confer no civil rights." 2 Except in the case of an after-born son, 
to which different considerations apply, the co-existence of a natural son 
possessing civil rights as such, and an adopted son, does not seem to be in 
accordance with Hindu law as laid down by the Courts, The difficulty in 
adjusting the respective rights would lead to great inconvenience, but, on 
the other hand, it seems hard upon a father that he should be unable to 
regain the religious benefits, which are lost to him by the conversion, or 
degradation of his son. 

Mr. Mayne 3 says " that the question might become of importance on 
the death of the natural son without issue," but the subsequent death of 
the son would not render the adoption valid, 4 

It is submitted that where a son has disappeared, and has Missing son. , 
not been heard of for many years, an adoption, if made, is not 
valid unless, at the time when the adoption is in question, it 
be proved that such son was dead at the date of the adoption. 5 

An adoption, which is invalid on account of there being a Death of son. 
living son, is not rendered valid by the death of that son. 6 

It has not been decided whether the assent of a natural or Consentofson. 
adopted son to a subsequent adoption can validate an adoption 
during the lifetime of such son. 7 It is submitted that although 

1 As, for instance, where he is a (1868% 2 B. L. R. A. C. 134 ; Guru 
coparcener in a joint family governed Das Nag v. Matilal Nag (1870), 6 
by tho Mitakshara law. Also he B. L. R. App. 16 ; 14 W. R. C. R. 
would not lose a right to succeed to 46S ; Parmeshar Rai v. Bisheshar 
collaterals, oven if his father had Singh (1875), 1 All 53; Dharup 
disinherited him. Nath v. Gdbind Saran (1886), 8 All. 

2 See Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th 614 ; J>hondo Bhikaji v. Gawsh 
ed., p. 134; Sarkar's "Law of Bhikaji (1886), 11 Bom. 433; and 
Adoption," p. 197. Sarkar's <c Law of Adoption," pp. 194, 

3 " Hindu Law," 8th ed., p. 134. 195. 

4 p os ^ no te 6. * Basoo Gamummah v. Basoo Chin- 

5 See Eango Balaji v. Mudiyeppa na Vencatasa, Mad. S. D. A. 1856, p. 
(1898), 23 Bom. 296, at p. 303. 20 ; Norton L. 0., vol. i. p. 78 ; Vera- 
Although ss. 107 and 108 of the Indian, prashyia v. Santauraja, Mad. S. D. A. 
Evidence Act (I. of 1872) fix rules as 1860, p. 168 ; Norton L. C., vol. i. p. 
to the presumption of death at the 78. This is disputed in Sarkar's " Law 
time of dispute, there is no presump- of Adoption," p. 190, but it seems 
tion as to the time of death, DJiarup clear that an adoption, which was, at 
Nath v. Gobind Saran (1886), 8 All. the time it was made, invalid, cannot 

at p. 620. As to the rules of be rendered valid by a subsequent 

with regard to the pre- event, see $ost 9 p. 156. 

9! death, see Janmajay 7 " Dattaka Mimansa," s. 1, para, 

v. K&thab Lai Ghose 12, in explanation of the Vedfk story 



106 



CONSENT OF SON, 



[CHAP. ni. 



a consenting son may bo estopped from disputing the adoption, 
the status of an adopted son with its legal effects of inheritance, 
etc., cannot be conferred by such consent. 

It is clear that it can only do so when such assent is completely free, 
and is given with a full knowledge of the circumstances. 1 

In the ** Dattaka Mimansa " a it is said that a second son may be 
adopted 3 with the sanction of the existing issue, and in Bttngatna v. AtcMwa 4 
this seems to have been accepted, although it became unnecessary to decide 
the question, but the Courts have not in any subsequent case upheld such 
adoption. 

It is submitted that consent to the adoption would not prevent a son 
from disputing it, 5 except where his conduct had amounted to an estoppel. 6 
Otherwise it would be difficult to adjust the respective rights of the legiti- 
mate and adopted son, 7 except where an arrangement had been arrived at 
with regard to them. Sastri G. C. Sarkar 8 treats the judgment in Rungama 
v. Atehaina * as deciding that the consent of the son could render the adop- 
tion valid ; but it has, it is submitted, no such effect. 

The fact that a mstn is a bachelor 10 or a widower ll does 
not prevent him from taking a son in adoption. 
Adoption by Provided that he has attained the age of discretion, a 
mmor. m i uor 12 j rf no t incapacitated, as such, from taking a son in 

adoption, or giving permission to adopt. 13 



Bachelor or 
widower* 



of Sunahsepha Devarata's adoption 
by Vfevamitra, who was already the 
father of a hundred sons, and whoso 
adoption of another son was ratified 
by the fifty younger sons. " Vasis- 
fcha," xvii. 33-35. Sarkar's " Law of 
Adoption," pp. 180, 181. 

1 See Rungama v. Atchama (1846), 
4 M. I A. 1, at pp. 102, 103 ; 7 W. R. 
(P. C.) 57, at pp. 61, 62; Sudanmid 
Mohapattur v. jBonomallee (1803), 
Marsh 317, at pp. 321, 322; 2 Hay, 
205. 

8 S. 1, para. 12. 

3 See ante, p. 103. 

* (1846), 4 M. I. A. I, at pp. 97, 
103 ; 7 W. K. P. C. 57, at pp. 59, 62. 

5 See post, p. 156. 

Post, pp. 172, 173. 
7 See post, p. 187. 

* " Law of Adoption," p, 180. 

(1846), 4 M. L A. 1, at p. 103 ; 
7 W. R. (P. 0.) 57, at p. 62. 

10 Go-pal Anant v. Narayan Ganesh 
(1888), 12 Bom. 329. See N. Gl^nd- 
iwekfantdn v. N. Smmfatnw (1869), 
4 Mad. H. 0. 270, and Qunnapa Dwh 



pandee v. Sunkapa (1839), Bom. Sel. 
R. 202; Monemothonath Dey v. 
Onouthnauth Dey (1865), 2 Jnd. Jur. 
(N. S.) 24, at p, 43. 

11 Nagappa Udapa v. Subba Sastry 
(1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 367; N. Cfyn& 
vase&Harvdu v. N. Bramhanna (1869), 
4 Had H. C. 270 ; TvkU Earn v. 
JSehari Lai (1889), 12 All. 328, at p. 
352 ; Mowmoflwrntli Dey v. Qnonth- 
nauth Dey (1865), 2 Ind. Jur. (N. S.) 
24, at p. 43 ; Ounnappa Deshpandee 
v. Sunkappa (1839), Bom. Sel. Rep. 
202. 

12 The Indian Majority Act (IX. of 
1875) does not affect the capacity to 
adopt, s. 2. 

18 Majendro Narain Ldhoree v. &t- 
roda Soonduree Dabee (1871), 15 W. 
R. C. R. 548, approved of in Jumoona 
Das&ya Chowdhrani v. Bamo#oond&rai 
Dassya Chotodhrani (1876), 3 I. A. 72, 
at pp. 83, 84 ; 1 Calc. 289, at pp. 295, 
296 ; 25 W. R. 0. R. 235, at p. 239 ; 
Vandravan Jekisan (Patel) v. Manilal 
CJwnilnl (Pattt) (1890), 15 Bom. 565, 



CHAP, III.] MINOK, 107 

There does not appear to be any case iu the Reports iii which there 
has been an, adoption by a Hindu who has not attained the ago of majority 
according to Hindu law. 

The cases on the subject deal with the capacity to give permission to 
adopt, but the reasons given in those cases would apply as much to the 
capacity to receive in adoption as to the capacity to give permission to 
adopt. These cases refer to the ' age of discretion," which apparently 
means the age at which a Hindu is competent to perform religious cere- 
monies, 1 but that age does not appear to be fixed. 

Of the cases which are cited as authorities for the above proposition, in 
Jnmoona Dassya Chowdhmni v. Baniasoondemi Dassya Ghowdhram,* 
the person giving the power had attained the age of majority according 
to the law to which ho is subject 3 ; in Paiel Vandravan Jefasan v. Paid 
Manilal Chunihl 4 it was held that permission could be given by a person 
who was within two months of arriving at the age of majority ; and in 
Rajendro Narain Lahoree v. Saroda Soonduree Delia 5 the report does 
not specify the age, but the boy had apparently not completed his fifteenth 
year, as he was described as a minor. 

In considering this question it may be remembered that a minor 
governed by the Mitakshara school would by adoption be acting to his 
temporal disadvantage, as he would thereby introduce a new coparcener 
into the family. 

It may bo that the ago depends upon individual capacity, but such a 
conclusion would, if possible, be avoided, as it would make the title of the 
adopted son depend upon an uncertain foundation, 

Sastri 0. 0, Sarkar argues that an adoption by a minor 10 inconsistent 
with Hindu ideas. 7 He points out that no case of adoption by a minor 
has as yet arisen. 8 It is very unlikely that the question as to an adoption 
by a minor would arise. His capacity to give a power of adoption may 
stand on a different footing, as such power would be for his spiritual benefit, 
and may become necessary when he is on his deathbed. 9 

In a case governed by the Maharashtra school there seems no reason 
why the authority of the husband should not be implied, whatever was 
MN age at the time of his death, 10 and in a case governed by the Dravida 
school the authority of the sapindas to authorize an adoption would not 
apparently bo affected by the ago of the husband at the time of his death. 

The Hindu Wills Act u provides rules for the execution of wills to which Hindu Wills 
the Act is applicable, and in such cases prevents a minor from disposing Act. 
of his property by will, 12 but as section 3 of the Act declares that nothing 

* Ifaj&ndro Nwain Lahore v. Sa- 7 "Law of Adoption," 2nd od., 
rofa tioonduree Debia (1871), 15 W. pp. 207-212. 

R. 0. R. 048. 8 P. 212. 

a (1870), 3 I. A. 72 ; 1 Calc. 289 ; tt See Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 

25 W. B. C. R. 235, 2nd ed., p. 215. 

8 This case was governed by tho 10 Sco VanAravanJeU8an(Pald) v. 

Bengal School of Law, JfomfaZ Chunilal (Patel) (1890), 15 

4 (1890), 15 Bom. 605, at p. 576. Bom. 565, at p. 576. 

* (1871), 15 W. R. 0. R. 548. u XXL of 1870. 

* As to tho religious advantage, ia S. 46 of Act X. of 18C5 applied 
, see j8M}4nfoo Nwain Lahoree v. Saro- by s. 2 of Act XXL of 1870 to such 

<f# ,$ot>nfltym J?05$e (1871), 15 W. R, Hindu wills as aro affected by the 
0. B. 548, lad'oWtrp^ 101, 102* latter Act. 



Adoption Ly 
two persorib. 



108 COTJKTS OF WAEBS. [OHAP. III. 

therein contained shall affect any law of adoption, the question as to the 
capacity of a minor to give authority to adopt is apparently untouched by 
that Act. 1 

Non-testa- It seems now to be impossible for a minor, who is under eighteen years of 

mentary jer- a g e> | exec ute a valid non-testamentary document conferring an authority 

mission. to adopfc ^ as a registering officer is required to refuse to register a document 

executed by a person who appears to him to be a minor. 3 The Legislature 

has not provided for the case of a verbal permission given by a minor. 

Two persons, even if they are brothers, cannot take the 
same person in adoption, either at the same time 3 or at different 
times, 4 

Two co-widows cannot, except perhaps in Western India, 5 take a boy 
in adoption so as to put them both into the position of adoptive mother. 6 

Ward of No adoption by a ward of the Bengal Court of Wards, or 

of e waids? urfc of the Court of Wards of Behar and Orissa,? and no written 
or verbal permission to adopt given by any ward is valid 
without the consent of the Lieutenant- Governor, obtained 
either previously or subsequently to such adoption, or to the 
giving of such permission on application made to him through 
the Court of Wards.8 

Even if the necessary consent be given, a ward of a Court of Wards 
cannot adopt or give permission to adopt unless he be otherwise competent 
to do so. 9 



Madras Court 
of Wards. 



A ward of the Madras Court of Wards cannot adopt or 



1 Sastri G. C. Sarkar is of a differ- 
ent opinion (" Law of Adoption," p. 
236), but if his view is correct, it 
follows, as he points out, "that an 
authority to adopt given by a minor 
to be valid must be given in words 
and not in writing." 5 

2 Act XVI. of 1908, s. 35. An 
opinion to the contrary effect seems 
to have been given by the Legal Re- 
membrancer of Bengal (see 12 C. W. N. 
cxxxvin.), but it is submitted that 
the words of the Act are clear. See 
s 17. 

3 Rajcoomar Loll v. Bissessur Dyal 
(1884), JO Calc. 688, at pp. 696, 697. 
W. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 
vol. i. p. 77. Mayne's " Hindu Law," 
8th cd., pp. 192, 193. " The Hindu 
law is ... silent upon the point and 
contains no rule one way or the other," 



Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," p. 300. 

4 Post, p. 148. 

5 Indar Kunwar (Maharam) v. 
Jaipal Kunwar (Maharani) (1888), 
15 1. A. 127, at pp. U4, 145 ; 15 Calc. 
725, at pp. 746, 747. 

Venkata Narasimha, Appa Row 
Bahadur (Sn Raja) v. Parthasarathy 
Appa Row Bahadur (Sri Raja) (1913), 
41 I. A. 51, at p. 69 ; 37 Mad. 199, 
at p. 220 ; 18 C. W. N. 554, at p. 563 ; 

16 Bom. L. fc. 328, at p. 337 ; Sarada 
Prosad Pal v. Rama Pati Pal (1912), 

17 C. W.N. 319, at p. 322. 

7 Act IX. (B. 0.) of 1879, s. 61. 

8 Act VII. of 1912, s. 5, read with 
Act IX. (B.C.) of 1879,s.61. 

8 For example, he cannot adopt 
unless he has arrived at the ago of 
discretion, ante, pp. 106, 107. 



CHAP. III.] COURTS OF WARDS. }0i) 

give a written or verbal permission to adopt without the consent 
of the Court of Wards.* 

No adoption by a ward of the Court of Wards of the Central Ward of Court 
Provinces, and no written or verbal permission to adopt given clSfpro- 
by such ward, is valid without the consent of the Chief Com- vinees " 
missioner, obtained either previously or subsequently to the 
adoption, or to the giving of the permission, on application 
made to him through the Court of Wards. 2 

A ward of the Court of Wards of the United Provinces Ward of Court 
cannot adopt without the consent in writing of the Court of United Pro- 
Wards, provided that the Court of Wards shall not withhold vmces * 
its consent if the adoption is not contrary to the personal or 
special law applicable to the ward, and does not appear likely 
to cause pecuniary embarrassment to the property, or to lower 
the influence or respectability of the family in public estimation. 
This restriction has no application to a proprietor who has 
applied to have his property placed under the superintendence 
of the Court of Wards. 3 

. In the Punjab no ward can, without previous sanction in Punjab. 
writing of the Court of Wards, adopt or give permission to 
adopt. 4 

There is no provision with regard to adoption in the Acts relating to Courts of 
Courts of Wards in Bombay 5 and Ajmere. 6 



It is submitted that, at any rate in the case of Sudras, 7 B ] gh e t ^ per- 
a person who is disqualified from inheriting by reason of 



personal disability, such as congenital blindness, impotence, or inheritance. 
lameness, 8 can nevertheless take a son in adoption. 9 

Sastri Gt C, Sarlcar 10 says that Colebrooke's English translation of a 
passage ll in the " Mitakshara " is the only authority for denying to persons 
excluded from inheritance the right to adopt, and he gives a translation 

* Act I. (M. C.) of 1902, 0. 34 (o). Bog. L of 1888. 

As to the law before the passing of 7 In their case no religious cere- 

that Act, soe Mad. Bog. V. of 1804, monies are necessary, post, p, 153. 

s, 25, which only deals with adoption 8 Post, pp. 370-372. 

by a ward. Sco Jumoona Dassya 9 See Mayne's "Hindu Law," 8th 

Chowdhrani v. Bamasoonderai Dassya cd., pp. 135-137 ; Sarkar's " Law 

Ohowdhrani (1876), 3 I. A. 72, at of Adoption," pp. 202, 203, 419; 

p. 83 ; 1 Calc. 289, at p. 295 ; 25 " Punjab Customary Law," vol. ii. p. 

W. B. C. B. 235, at p. 239. 154. 

, a Act XVII. of 1885, s. 24. 10 Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," p. 

* Act IV. (U P<) of 1912, s. 37, 202. 

' * Act XL (Pimj, 0.) of 1903, s. 15. ll Chap, ii. s. 10, para. 11. 

* Act L (Bo, 0.) of 1005, 



no 



[CHAP. in. 



Change of 
religion and 
degradation* 



Impurity 
arising from 
bodily state* 



Ceremonial 
impurity. 



which has not such effect. The " Dattaka Chandrika " reoognizes the 
right, 1 and the same view was taken by Sutherland. 2 

' Change of religion, or degradation from caste, does not 
per se interfere with the capacity to take in adoption. 3 

& 
Where a man not only renounces Hinduism, but also adopts another 

system of religion with a personal law attached to it, such as Moham- 
medanism, he loses a right which is alien to the system adopted by him. 4 

It is difficult to see how a Hindu who has become a Christian can take 
a dattaka son, The boy would not inherit, as the Indian Succession Act 
(X. of 1865) does not provide for an adopted son. Moreover, the religious 
elements of the adoption would be wanting. Clearly a twice-born Hindu 
cannot adopt after becoming a Christian, as he would be incapable of 
performing the necessary religious ceremonies. 

In the case of members of the twice-born classes, a person 
suffering from virulent leprosy, and possibly one suffering from 
any other incurable disease, 5 would apparently be incompetent 
to take in adoption, 6 at any rate until he had performed 
expiation according to the Shastras. 7 In less serious cases of 
leprosy, it seems clear that there is no objection to adoption, 
at any rate after expiation. 8 In the case of Sudras, leprosy can 
be no disqualification for taking in adoption, 9 

In the case of Sudras, as no religious ceremonies are neces- 
sary, 10 an adoption by a person who is in a state of ceremonial 
impurity from the death or birth of a relation is not on that 
account invalid. 11 



1 S. 6, paras. 1-2. According to 
the " Dattaka Chandrika " (s. 6, para. 
1), the son has a right of maintenance. 
This is disputed by G. C. Sarkar, 
" Law of Adoption,*' p. 419. 

* "Synopsis," 664, 671. See W. 
Macnaghten, i. p. 66, note. 

8 Act XXI. of 1850. 

* MaMai (Bai) v. Hirbai (Bai) 
(1911), 35 Bom. 264. See ante, p. 23. 

5 " Dayabhaga," chap. v. paras. 7, 
10-13. It would, however, be un- 
likely that Courts would extend the 
grounds for exclusion from inheri- 
tance beyond the decided cases. 

See Sarkar's " Law of Adop- 
tion," p. 206. In Bliagaban Eamanutj 
Dos (Mohunt) v. Rog7mnundu7i JRa- 
mamj Das (Mohunt) (1895), 22 I. A. 
94, at p. 105, 22 Calc. 843, at p. 
858, the Judicial Committee say, 
" In order to disqualify from making 
an adoption the leprosy must be of a, 



virulent form." Their lordships in 
that case were dealing with an ap- 
pointment by a mohunt of a chela to 
succeed him, and not with an adop- 
tion in the ordinary sense. In the 
Courts below it seems to have been 
assumed that incurable leprosy would 
prevent such appointment. 

7 See Bfioofamessuree Delia v. 
Gourree Doss TurkopuncJianun (1809), 
II W. B. 0. B. 535; 2 W. Macn. 
201, 202. As to the power to dele- 
gate the performance of ceremonies, 
see cases, post t p. 155. 

8 W. Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," 
vol. ii pp. 102, 202. 

9 Sukumari Bewa v. Ananta Malta 
(1900), 28 Oalc. 168. 

10 Post, p. 153. 

11 Thangathanni v. Ramu Mudali 
(1882), 5 Mad. 38B; Arita Motion 
Ghosh Mouhk v. Nirode Mohon Ghosh 
Mouhk (1916), 20 C. W. N. 901. 



CHA1. III. ASCETIC. HI 

It is not settled whether among the twice-born classes a 
person can adopt when he is in a state of impurity arising from 
the death or birth of a relation, 1 and has not performed the 
necessary expiation, 

Hi 1 

This question is not one of great importance, as a person in a state 
of impurity would be unlikely himself to perform ceremonies which would 
be of no religious efficacy. He is apparently competent to perform such 
ceremonies vicariously, 2 and if they are performed the Court will uphold 
the adoption. 3 There seems no doubt that ceremonial impurity can be 
removed by expiation. The Courts would probably be disinclined to give 
effect to a disability which can be cured by expiation.* 

In LaTcshmibai v. Ramckwidra 5 it was said, " There is thus admittedly 
no authoritative Smriti text on the point, and whatever the efficacy of 
ceremonial strictness may be, the Courts which administer the law in 
British India must be guided by what is the received practice and custom 
of the country or the class to which the parties belong," 

The fact that the adoptive father is ceremonially impure does not 
prevent his receiving in adoption, and he can postpone the religious cere- 
monies until the pollution has been removed. 6 

It has been held that a professed ascetic cannot take in Adoption by 

, , . _ ascetic, 

adoption. 7 

Although the Hindu codes did not contemplate an adoption by a 
person who had renounced the world for the sake of religion, there seems 
now, having regard to the provisions of Act XXI. of 1850, nothing to 
prevent a person from emancipating himself from a religious order and 
taking a son in adoption. 8 

A husband does not require the assent of his wife to his Assent of wife 

. 1 * . , -rt i , . , n t unnecessary. 

taking a son in adoption. He may adopt in spite of her express 

1 In KamaUnga Pillai v. Sadasiva 4 Post, p. 372. 

PUUi (1864), 9 M. I. A. 510 ; 1 W. 5 (1896), 22 Bom. 590, at p, 595. 

"R. P. C. 25, it was assumed that a 6 Santappayya v. Mangappayya 

person who at the time of the adop- (1894), 18 Mad. 397, at pp. 398, 399 ; 

tiou was impure in consequence of Asita Moton Ghosh MoilUk v, Nirode 

the death of a relative could not MohonGhoshMouUk(1916),Z()C."W.N. 

adopt. See Ranganayakamma v. Al- 901. See SarkarV* Law of Adoption," 

war 8etti (1889), 13 Mad. 214, where 2nd ed , p. 2156. 

the question was as to the adopting 7 " Punjab Records," 1874, p. 83. 

widow's power to adopt. Strange's 8 In MJialsabai v. Vithoba Khan- 

"Manual," 63, 2nd ed., p. 18. dappa Gulve (1862), 7 Bom. H. C. 

2 Sarkar's '* Law of Adoption," p. App. xxvi., it was held that there 
213. See Lakshmibai v. Ramckandra is nothing in the Hindu law books to 
(1896), 22 Bom. 590 ; Jamnabai v. show that a Vaisya who has undor- 
Raychand NahakJiand (1883), 7 Bom. gone the ceremony of Vibhut Vida (a 
225; Vijiarangam v. Laksfiman ceremony indicating renunciation of 
(1871), 8 Bom. H. 0. R. 0. Q. 244. worldly affairs, analogous to " retire- 

3 t ftayji Vinayakrav Jaggannath ment to a forest," in. ancient law, 
Sfaf^wtt v. LaJcshmibai (1887), 11 Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 201) 
Bom., 3$i, at p- &95< is incapable of adopting a son. 



112 



PERMISSION TO WIFE. 



(CHAP. in. 



Adoption by 
woman. 



dissent. 1 A wife may, however, join in an adoption by her 
husband. 

There is said to be a practice in Bengal by which a man adopts a son 
in conjunction with more than one wife. 3 One wife only can receive a 
boy in adoption so as to step into the position of being his adoptive 
mother. 3 

A woman cannot take a child to herself in adoption. 4 

If she goes through the form of doing so, the boy acquires no rights 
thereby, either in her property or in that of her husband. 

A woman can, if she is governed by the Mithila school of law, take to 
herself a son according to the Kritrima form of adoption. 6 

As to adoption of daughters by dancing girls and prostitutes, see 
post, pp. 163, 164, 



PERMISSION TO WIFE OR WIDOW TO ADOPT. 
permission to A Hindu, who is capable of taking a son in adoption, 

wife to adopt. ...... , -, , 

give to his wife power to adopt a son, or sons in succession, 6 
to him, to be exercised either during his lifetime, 7 or (except 
he be governed by the Mithila school of law 8 ) after his death. 9 



1 See Alank Manjari v. Fakir 
Chand Sartar (1834), 5 Ben. Sel. B. 
356 (new edition, 418); "Dattaka 
Mimaasa," s. 1, para. 22. 

2 See Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 
pp. 183, 184, 

3 Venkata Narasimha Appa Roy 
Bahadur (Sri Maja) v. Parthasarathy 
Appa Row Bahadur (Sri Raja) (1913), 
41 I. A. 51, at p. 69; 37 Mad. 199, 
at p. 233 ; 18 C. W. N. 554, at p. 563 ; 

16 Bom. L. B. 328, at p. 337; Sarada 
Prosad Pal v, Rama Pati Pal (1912), 

17 0. W. N. 319, at p. 322. See post, 
p. 182. 

4 Chowdry Pudum Singli v. Koer 
Oodey Singh (1869), 12 M. I A. 350 ; 
2 B. L. B. (P. C.) 101 ; 12 W. B. 
(P. C.) 1 ; Narendra Nath Bairagi v. 
Dim Nath Das (1909), 36 Calc. 824. 
In Peria Ammani v. Krishnasami 
(1892), 16 Mad. 182, at p. 194. 
Best, J., expressed the opinion that a 
Jain widow who succeeded absolutely 
to Her husband's property, could 
adopt a son to herself, but such 
expression of opinion was unnecessary 
for the decision of the case. An 
interesting discussion as to the 



capacity of women to adopt is to be 
found in Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 
pp. 216-226. 

6 Post, pp. 157-159. 

6 Sham Chunder v. Narayni Ditch 
(1807), 1 Ben. Sel. B. 209 (now 
edition, 279). For other instances, 
see Jumoona Dassya Chowdhrani v. 
Bamasundari Dassya Chowdhrani 
(1876), 3 I. A. 72 ; 1 Calc. 289 ; 
Bhoobun Moyee Delia v. Ram Kishore 
Acharj Chowdhry (1865), 10 M. I. A. 
279 ; 3 W. B. P. C. 15 ; Ram Soondur 
Singh v. Surbanee Dossee (1874), 22 
W. B. C. B. 121. As to whether in 
the absence of a special power sons 
can be adopted in succession, see 
post, p. 129, 

7 She cannot adopt a son to him 
during his lifetime without his 
authority. Narayan Bdbaji v. Nana 
Mawhar (1870), 7 Bom. H. 0. A. C. 
153. 

8 Post, p. 126. 

9 Chowdhry Pudum Singh v. Row 
Oodey Singh (1869), 12 M. I. A, 350 ; 
2 B. L. B. (P. C.) 101 ; 12 W. B. P. 
C. 1 ; VettanU Venhtta Krishna 
(Rajah) v. Venhata Rama 



CHAP, III.] 



PERMISSION TO ADOPT. 



118 



" A man cannot delegate to others, to be exercised after his death* any 
greater power than he himself possessed in his lifetime," l 

The existence of a son, grandson, or great-grandson, who is not per- Existence of 
manently incapacited from performing religious rites, 2 does not of itself son ' eto 
invalidate a power, but it prevents the exercise of the power, which remains 
in suspense. 3 

It is said that when a person is by reason of impurity arising from his Permission 
bodily state, such as from virulent leprosy, disqualified from adopting, 4 |^on dis- 

he can nevertheless give to his widow a permission to adopt. 5 qualified from 

adopting. 

Under no circumstances can a son be adopted by any one Adoption only 
except the man to whom he is adopted, or his widow. 6 

Power to adopt can be given to the wife alone, and to no 
one else. 7 The inclusion of other persons in the power vitiates can be donee 

of power. 

it 8 ; but the donor of the power may express his desire that 
in the exercise of the power the wife should consult any named 
person, 9 and he may make the exercise of the power contingent 
upon the consent of other persons. 10 

It is not clear whether a power to two widows to adopt jointly is good, 11 
but it is possible in Western India. 13 



Narasayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1, at 
p. 9 ; 1 Mad. 174, at p. 186 ; Mut- 
saddi Lai v. Kundan Lai (1906), 33 
I. A. 55 ; 28 All. 377 ; 8 Bom. L. B. 
371 ; and cases, post, pp. 118, 119. 

1 Gopee Lall v. Chundraolee Bu- 
hoojee (Mussamat Sree) (1872), L A. 
Sup. Vol. 131, at p. 133 ; 11 B. L. 
R. 391, at p. 394 ; 19 W. R. C R. 12, 
at p. 13. 

2 Ante, p, 104. 

Post, pp. 132, 133. 
* See ante, p. 110. 

5 Sarkar's " Law ol Adoption," p. 
206. 

6 Amrito Lai Dutt v. Surnomoye 
Dasi (1900), 27 I. A. 128, at p. 134 ; 
27 Gale. 996, at p. 1002 ; 4 C. W. N. 
649, at p. 551 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 446; 
Lakslm&ai v. Ramchandra (1896), 22 
Bom. 590, at p. 593; Karsandas 
Natha v. Ladkavahu (1887), 12 Bom. 
185, at p. 199 ; Bhagvandas Tejmal v. 
Rajmal (1873), 10 Bom. H. C. 241, 
at p. 257 ; Strange's * 6 Hindu Law," 
vol. ii. pp. 93, 94. More than one 
widow cannot adopt at the same time, 
ante, p. 108. 

7 Amrito Lai Dutt v, Surnomoye 
Ifasi (1900), 27 L A. 128, at p. 134 ; 
27 Oak 996, at p. 1002 ; 4 C. W. N. 
549, ai PL 561; 2 Bom. L. R. 446; 

H.L. 



Karsandas Natha v. Ladkavahu (1887), 
12 Bom. 185, at p. 199 ; Bhagvandas 
Tejmal v. Rajmal (1873), 10 Bom. 
H. 0. 241. 

8 Amrito Lai Dutt v. Surnomoye 
Dasi (1900), 27 L A. 128 ; 27 Calo. 
996 ; 4 C. W. N. 549 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 
446. 

9 See Surendra Nandan Das v. 
Sailaja Kant Das Mahapatra (1891), 
Caic. 385. 

10 Beem Churn Sen v. Heeraloll 
Seal (1867), 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 225. 
See Amrito Lai Dutt Y. Surnomoye 
Dasi (1900), 27 L A. 128, at p. 135 ; 
27 Gale. 996, at p. 1002; 4 G. W. 
N. 549, at p. 551 ; JSal Gangadhar 
TtlaJc v. Sfvriniws Pandit (SJvri] 
(1915), 42 t A. 135 ; 39 Bom. 441 ; 
19 C. W. N. 729 ; 17 Bom. L. R. 527. 

11 Barada Prosad Pal v. Rama Pati 
Pal (1912), 17 C. W. N. 319, at p. 322 ; 
VenJcataNarasimTiaAppa Row Bahadur 
(Sri Raja) v. Parthasarathy Appa Row 
Bahadur (Sri Raja) (1913), 41 L A. 
51, at p. 69 ; 37 Mad. 199, at p. 223 ; 18 
C.W.N 554, at p. 563; 16Bom.L.R. 
328, at pp. 337, 338. See ante, p. 108. 

12 Indar Kunwar (MaJiarani) v. 
Jaipal Kunwar (MaJiarani) (1888), 
15 1. A. 127, at pp. 144, 145 ; 15 Gale. 
725, at pp. 746, 747. 



114 



FORM, REVOCATION. 



[CHAP, HI. 



Form of 
authority* 



Hindu Wills 

Act. 



Stamp. 



Registration. 



The authority need not be in any particular form. It may 
be in writing, or (except in a case to which the Oudh Estates 
Act, 1869, 1 applies) it may be oral. 3 

If the authority is contained in a will to which the Hindu Wills Act 3 
applies, such will must be executed in accordance with the formalities 
required by that Act. 4 

If the instrument giving the authority is not of a testamentary character, 
it must, if executed after the 1st January, 1870, be engrossed on a stamped 
paper of ten rupees, 5 and if executed after the 1st of January, 1872, it 
must be registered. 

In cases to which the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, 1 applies, the power 
must be in writing, 7 but need not be registered. 8 

Revocation of A power of adoption may be revoked, either expressly or 
power ' by implication. 

An example of a revocation by implication would be where, after giving 
the power, the man himself takes a son in adoption. 9 

The mere birth of a son would not necessarily imply a revocation, but 
it might, taken with other circumstances, have such effect. 10 

Where the power is contained in a will, to which the Hindu Wills Act u 
applies, it cannot " be revoked otherwise than by another will or codicil, 
or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed 
in the manner in which an unprivileged will is required to be executed, 12 
or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator, 
or by some person in his presence and by his direction, with the intention 
of revoking the same." 13 



Hindu Wills 
Act. 



1 I of 1869. 

2 Soondur Koomwee Debia v, Gu- 
dadhw P&r*had Tewaree (1858), 7 
M. I. A. 54, at p. 64 ; 4 W. E. P. C. 
116, at p. 119; Mutsaddi Lai v. 
Kundan Lai (1906), 33 L A. 55 ; 28 
All. 377 ; 8 Bom. L. R. 371. 

3 XXI. of 1870. 

* S. 50 of Act X. of 1865, applied 
by Act XXI of 1870, s. 2, to such 
wills as are subject to the latter Act. 

6 By Act II. of 1899, Sched. I, art. 
3, an adoption deed, that is to say, 
any instrument (other than a will) 
recording an adoption or conferring 
or purporting to confer an authority 
to adopt requires a stamp of ten 
rupees. There are similar provisions 
in Act I. of 1879, Sched. I, art. 38, 
and Act XVIII. of 1869, Sched. II, 
art. 3L 

* Act XVI. of 1908, s. 17. As to 
whether in th absence of registra- 
tion evidence m^y be given ag to the 
grant of tfce power, qtisere, see 



sundara Mtidaly v. Durafeami Muda- 
har (1903), 27 Mad. 30. 

7 S. 22 (8). 

8 Bhaiya, Habidat Singh v. Indar 
Kunwar (Mahamni) (1888), 16 I. A. 
53 ; 16 Calc. 556. 

9 See Goureepershaud Mai v. Jy 
mala (Mussummaut) (1814), 2 Ben, 
Sel. R. 136 (new edition, p. 174). 

10 See Oungaram JBkaduree v. Jf- 
sJieekaunt Roy (1813), 2 Ben. Sel. B. 
44 (new edition, p. 56). 

" XXI. of 1870. 

12 Act X. of 1865, s. 50, applied by 
Act XXL of 1870, s. 2, to such wills 
as are subject to the latter Act. 

13 Act X. of 1865, s. 57, applied to 
Hindu wills by Act XXI. of 1870, 
B. 2. It cannot bo revoked by another 
and invalid will which neither ex- 
pressly nor impliedly revokes it; 
Venkatanarayana Pittai v. StMammal 
(1915), 43 1. A. 20 ; 39 Mad. 107; 20 
0. W, N.234; 13 Bom. JX E, 372, 



CHAP. III.J SEVERAL WIDOWS. 115 

Where the power is contained in a will, which is not subject to the Hindu 
Wills Act, the revocation can be effected by parol, 1 

When a power to adopt is given to one of several widows, Several 
such widow can adopt without reference to the other widow 
or widows, 2 and she alone can exercise the power. 3 

When power is given to the widows jointly, it cannot be 
acted upon by one of them singly, even on the death of her 
co-widow, 4 except perhaps in Western India. 5 

The question as to whether apart from custom a joint power given to 
several widows is capable of exercise was discussed but not decided in 
VenJcata Narasimha Appa Row v. Parthasarathy Appa Row (1913), 41 
I. A. 51 ; 37 Mad. 199 ; 18 C. W. N. 554 ; 16 Bom. L, B. 328. It was 
pointed out in that case that two women could not bear the same relation 
as mother to the child. 

Where the permission is given to all of the widows severally, 
the elder widow, and on her refusal the younger widow can 
adopt. 6 

Where the authority contemplates simultaneous adoptions by the 
several widows, so that there should be two adopted sons living at the 
same time, the power is incapable of being exercised at all. 7 

1 Pertab Narain Singh (Maharajah) Jaipal Kunwar (Maharani) (1888), 
v. Subhao Koer (Maharanee) (1877), 15 I. A. 127, at pp. 144, 145; 15 
4 I. A. 228 ; 3 Calc. 626 ; 1 C. L. R. Gale. 725, at pp. 746, 747. 

113. In that case a verbal authority 6 Ranjit Lai Karmakar v. Btjoy 

given by a Hindu testator for the Krishna Karmakar (1912), 39 Cak>. 

destruction of a will, although the will 582 ; 16 C. W. N. 440 ; Mondakini, 

was not in fact destroyed, was held Dasi v. Adinath Dey (1890), 18 Calc. 

to constitute a revocation of the will. 69 In Luctonarain Tagore's case, 

2 Colebrooke's remarks in Chel- 3?. Macnaghten's "Considerations," p, 
lummal v. Munummal (1803); 172, Sircar's "Vyavastha Darpana," 
Strange's " Hindu Law,'* vol. ii p. 91. 2nd ed., 842, the claim of the eldest 

3 Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th ed., widow was upheld by the Court. For 
p. 149. An authority given to an instance of a power given to the 
the " Maharani Sahiba," to adopt elder widow to adopt three sons suc- 
was held to give power to the older cossively and thereafter to the younger 
widow alone. In&ar Kunwar (Ma- widow to adopt, see AJchoy Ohunder 
harani) v. Jaipal Kunwar (MaJiarani) Bagchi v. Kallapahar Haji (1885), 
(1888), 15 I. A. 127 ; 15 Calo. 725. 12 L A. 198 ; 12 Calc. 406. 

* Sco VenJcata Narasimha Appa 7 Surendra Keshav Roy v. Doorga- 

Row Bahadur v. Parthasarathy Appa &undari Dassee (1892), 19 L A. 108 ; 

Row Bahadur (Sri Rajah) (1913), 41 19 Calc. 513 ; Akhoy CJmnder Bagchi 

L A. 51; 37 Mad. 199; 18 C. W. v. Kallapahar Haji (1885), 12 L A. 

N. 554 ; 10 Bom. L. B. 328 ; Sarada 198 ; 12 Calc. 406, but the Court 

Prosad Pal v. Rama Pati Pal (1912), will, if possible, give to the document 

17 CL '^ N. 319, at p. 322. Sir IP. a construction which will make a. 

lawful adoption possible, 



116 



CONTINGENT PERMISSION. 



[CHAP. in. 



Permission 



The permission may be absolute, or its exercise may be 
"contingent upon certain events, 1 or may be subject to lawful 
conditions, or may be subject to restrictions as to the boy to be 
adopted, or otherwise. 

Contingent on The exercise of the power may be contingent upon the consent of 
consent of persons named by the husband, 3 and if such consent cannot be obtained 
the authority cannot be exercised. 3 

A direction to a wife " to adopt a son with the good advice and opinion 
of the manager," does not make the adoption contingent on the consent of 
the manager. 4 

In some cases the contingency which is expressed is one that is implied 
by the law, as, for instance, a man gives to his wife a power to adopt in 
case his son dies under age and -unmarried. 5 

There is authority that where the power of adoption requires as a 
condition of its being exercised that particular arrangements should be 
made with regard to the property, as, for instance, that particular property 
should be devoted to a charity, effect must be given to such condition. 6 

The failure of a disposition as to property in a will does 
not necessarily affect a power of adoption. 7 

Failure of con- Where the contingency, upon the happening of which the 
power is to be exercised, does not occur, the power cannot be 
exercised. 

For instance, A, leaving his wife pregnant, makes a will giving her 
authority to adopt " in case the son to be born shall die." The widow is~^ 
delivered of a daughter. The power cannot be exercised. 8 



others. 



Implied con 
dition ex- 
pressed. 

Condition as 
to property. 



Failure of 
disposition. 



1 A condition subsequent, i.e* pro- 
viding that in a certain event the 
adoption is to become void, would 
not affect an adoption which has been 
made. 

2 Beem Churn Sen v. Heeraloll Seal 
(1867), 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 225. See 
Amnto Lai Dutt v. Surnomoye Dasi 
(1900), 27 I A. 128, at p. 135 ; 27 
Calc. 996, at p. 1002 ; 4 C. W. N. 
549, at p. 551. 

8 See Seem Churn Sen v. Heera* 
loU Seal (1867), 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 
225,- Amirthayyan v. Ketharamay- 
yan (1890), 14 Mad. 65, at p. 70 ; 
Tarachurn Chatterjee v. Surest, Chun- 
der Mookerji (1889), 16 I. A. 166, 
judgment of High Court, afc p. 167 ; 
Amarito Led Dutt v. Surnomoye Dasi 
(1900), 27 I. A. 128, at p. 134 ; 27 
Cafe. 996, at p. 1002 ; 4 C. W. N. 
649, at p. 551; 2 Bom. L. B 
446. 

1 Surendra Nandan Das v, Sailaja 



Kant Das Mahapatra (1891), 18 Calc., 
385. ' 

fi VellanU Venkata Krishna Row 
(Rajah) v. Venkata Rama Lalcshmi 
Narsayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1, at p. 9; 
1 Mad. 174, at p. 186; 26 W. R. C. 
R. 21, at p. 22. See ByTcant Monee 
Roy v. Kisto Soonderee Roy (1867) 
7 W. R. C. R. 392 ; SoluTchna (Mus- 
summaut) v. Ramdolal Pande (1811), 

I Ben. Sel. R. 324 (new edition, 434). 

6 Ganapati Ayyan v. Savithri Am. 
vnal (1897), 21 Mad. 10. As to the 
power of the adoptive father to 
restrict the adopted son's rights in an- 

- cestral property, see post, pp. 184, 185. 

7 BachooHurlcisondas^Mankorelai 
(1907), 34 I. A. 107; 31 Bom. 373- 

II C. W. N. 769 ; 9 Bom. L. R. 646. 

8 Mohendreloll Mooleerjee v. Rooki- 
ney Dabee (1864), Coryton, 42. Pro- 
bably the Court would now give a 
more liberal construction to a pro- 
vision of this kind, see post, p. 117. 



CHAP, III.] 



CONSTRUCTION. 



117 



Where the exercise of the power is contingent upon cir- invalid con- 
eumstanees, which involve an invalid adoption, or is contingent msenc5 " 
upon illegal, or immoral, or impossible conditions, the power 
cannot be exercised. 

In a case where the power was only to be exercised in case of the dis- 
agreement of the wife and son, the power was held to be invalid. 1 

A permission to adopt must be strictly construed, 2 but a strict con. 
possible construction which would render the power valid 
should be preferred. 3 If the permission be acted upon it 
must be strictly followed. 4 

As to successive adoptions, see post, pp. 129, 130. 

If the strict exercise of the power would involve an invalid adoption, 
then no effect can be given to the power, as, for example, where the donor 
of the power directs the simultaneous adoption of more than one child, 5 
or the adoption of a boy during the lifetime of a living son. 6 

Where the husband has specified the boy to be adopted, Specification 
or the class out of which a boy is to be adopted, 7 his direction oy ' 
must be followed. It is not settled whether if a specified boy 
be unavailable, another boy can be adopted. 8 



1 Solukhna (Mussummaut) v. Ram* 
dolal Pande (1811), 1 Ben. Sel. R. 
324 (new edition, 434). 

8 Mohendrofott Mookerjee v. Roolci- 
ney Dabee (1864), Coryton, 42. This, 
and other cases, which lay down the 
rule that powers of adoption are to 
be strictly construed are criticized in 
Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 235, 
where it is advocated that a liberal 
construction should be given to 
powers of adoption. 

3 See Akhoy Chunder Bagchi v. 
Kalapahar Haji (1885), 12 I. A. 198 ; 
12 Calc. 406 ; Ranjit Lai Karmakar 
v. Bijoy Krishna, Karmakar (1912), 39 
.Oalo. 582 ; 16 C. W N. 440. 

* Chowdhry Pudum Singh v. Koer 
Oodey Singh (1869), 12 M. I. A. 350, 
at p. 356; 12 W. R. P. 0. 1, at 
p. 2, where their lordships say, " Of 
course such a power must be strictly 
pursued," (In the report of the 
same case in 2 B. L. R. (P. 0.) 101, 
at p. 104, the words are reported as, 
c * Of course such authority must be 
strictly proved.") See Amrito Lai 
fim v. , fiurnomoye Daai (1900), 27 
X A. M8S7 alc. 996 j 1 4 0. W. N. 



549 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 446 ; Mutsaddi 
Lai v. Kundan Lai (1906), 33 I. A. 55 ; 
28 All. 377 ; 8 Bom. L. R. 371. 

5 Surendra Keshav Eoy v. Doorga- 
sundari Dassee (1892), 19 I. A. 108 ; 
19 Gale. 513. See Akhoy Chunder 
Bagchi v. Kalapahar Haji (1885), 12 
I. A. 198; 12 Calc. 406. S. 0. in 
Court below, Gyanendro Chunder 
LaUri v. Kallapahar Hajee (1882), 9 
Calc. 50; 11 C. L. R. 297; Chounda* 
walee Bahoojee (Gosaeen Sree) v. 
Giidhareejee (1868), 3 Agra, 226. 

6 In this case the adoption cannot 
be made even after the death of the 
living son. Joychundro Race v. Bhy- 
rubchundro Raee, Ben. S. D. A. 1849, 
p. 461 ; SoluJchna (Mussummaut) v. 
Ramdolal Pande (1811), 1 Bon. Sel. 
R. 324 (new edition, 434). 

7 Amirthayyan v. Ktfharamayyan 
(1890), 14 Mad. 65. 

8 Mohendrofoll Mookerjee v, Rooki- 
ney Dabee (1864), Coryton, 42, at p. 
46 ; Amirthayyan v. Ketharamayyan 
(1890), 14 Mad. 65. Contra opinion 
of Bengal pundits ia VeerapermaU , 
Pillay v. Narrain Pittay (1801), 1 
Mad. K C, 78, at p, 98. 



118 SPECIFICATION OF BOY. [CHAP. III. 

In Bombay air authority to adopt a specified boy would not, at any 
rate in the case of that boy being unavailable, prevent an adoption of 
another boy, unless the husband has expressly forbidden the adoption 
of any other boy. 1 In an old case 2 a similar rule was applied in Madras, 
but in a recent case 3 a different view was entertained. It is submitted 
that except in a case governed by the Maharashtra school of law, an 
authority to adopt a specified boy cannot be exercised with respect to any 
other boy. The above-named school permits an adoption by the widow 
without the express consent of her husband, 4 and will not imply a pro- 
hibition to adopt a boy other than the named boy. 

Motive of Where the adoption is otherwise valid, a discussion as to the 

W1 w * motive of the widow for adopting is immaterial. 5 



ADOPTION BY WIDOW. 

There is a difference of opinion between the schools as to 
the power of a widow to adopt a son to her husband. 

Origin of The difference of doctrine of the several schools of law arises from the 

differences be- interpretations put by the schools upon a text of Vasishta. 6 As to this, 

* the Judicial Committee said, in Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga 

SathupathyS " All the schools accept as authoritative the text of VasistJia, 

which says, * Nor let a woman give or accept , son unless with the assent 

of her lord.' But the Mithila school apparently takes this to mean that 

the assent of the husband must be given at the time of the adoption, and, 

therefore, that a widow cannot receive a son in adoption, according to 

1 See Lafohmibai v, Rajaji (1897), (Rajah) v. Venkata Kama LaTcshmi 
22 Bom. 996, approving of the fol- Narsayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1, at p, 14 ; 
lowing passage in West and Buhler, 1 Mad. 174, at pp. 190, 191 ; 26 W. B. 
voL u. p. 965, " It is common for a C. B. 21, at p. 26 ; ftamchandra 
husband authorizing an adoption to Ehagavan v. Mulji NanaWiai (1896), 
specify the child he wishes to be 22 Bom. 558 (a decision of a full 
taken. Should that child die, or be bench of the Bombay High Court), 
refused by his parents, the authority The following were previously re- 
would still be held, at least, in ported decisions on the same question : 
Bombay, to warrant the adoption of Bhimawa v. Sangawa (1896), 22 Bom. 
another child, unless, indeed, he had 206; M aJtdbksvar londba v. Durgabai 
said * such a child and no other.' (1896), 22 Bom. 199 ; Vithoba v. Bapw 
The presumption is that he desired an (1890), 15 Bom. 110 ; Vandravan Jeki- 
adoption, and by specifying the object san (Patel) v. Manilal Chunilal (Patel) 
merely indicated a preference." See (1890), 15 Bom. 565; Rupchand &in- 
ftamchandra JSaji v. JSapu Kliandu, dumal v. RaJchmabai (1871), 8 Bom. 
Bom. P. J. 1877, p. 42. H. C. A. C. 114 ; RaMimabai v. Rod- 

2 VeerapermaU PiOay v. Nanain Jiabai (1868), 5 Bom. H. C. A. C. 
Pittay (1801), 1 Mad. N. C. 78. 181. 

* AwMayyan v. Ketharamayyan 8 XV. 1-8; Colebrooke's "Di- 
(1890), U Mad. 65. See post, p. gest," vol. iii. p. 242. 

129. (1868), 12 M. I. A. 397, at pp. 

4 Post, pp. 124, 125. 435, 436 ; 1 B. L. E. P. C. 1 3 at p. 

* VettanU Vmhtfa Krishna Mow 12 ; 10 W. B. P. C. 17, at p. 21. 



CHAP, in.] BENGAL; BENARES SCHOOLS. Ill 

the Dattaka form, at all. The Bengal school interprets the text as requiring 
an express permission given by the husband in his lifetime, but capable 
of taking effect after his death; whilst the MuyooTchu and Koosihubha 
treatises which govern the Mahratta, school explain the text away by 
saying that it applies only to an adoption made in the husband's lifetime, 
and is not to be taken to restrict the widow's power to do that which the 
general law prescribes as beneficial to her husband's soul. Thus, upon a 
careful review of all these writers, it appears that the difference relates 
rather to what shall be taken to constitute, in cases of necessity, evidence 
of authority from the husband, rather than to the authority to adopt being 
independent of the husband." 

Under the Bengal school of law a widow cannot adopt a Bengal school, 
son without the express permission of her husband. 1 

Where a power of adoption is given to two widows successively the 
elder would have the preference. 2 

The same rule applies under the Benares school of law, 3 Benarea 

r school. 

It applies even if the deceased husband was a member of a joint 
undivided family, and his rights had devolved by survivorship upon the 
other members of the family. 4 

Among the Jains, the right of a childless widow to adopt is generally Jaina* 
co-extensive with the right which was possessed by her husband, and does 
not depend upon his authority, either express or implied. 5 

Such right, as being derogatory to the ordinary Hindu law, must be 
specially proved in each case. It has been affirmed in cases of members 
of the Saraogee Agarwala sect from Meerut, 6 Aligarh, 7 Saharunpur, 8 and 

1 SoluJchna (Micssummaut) v. Ram- Iraj Konwur (Ranee) (1816), 2 Ben. 
dolal Pande (1811), 1 Bon. Sol. B. Sel. B. 169 (now edition, 216) ; Jai 
324 (new edition, 434) ; Tar a Munee Mam Dhami v. Mman Dfatim (1830), 
Dibia (MuSt.) v. Devnarayun Rai 5 Bon. Sel. B. 3. See Parbhu Lai 
,1824), 3 Ben. Sel. B. 387 (new (Lala) v. Mylne (1887), 14 Calc. 401, 
edition, 516) ; Jariki Dibeh v, Suda at pp. 415, 416. 

Sheo Rai (1807), 1 Ben Sel, B. 197 * See G. C. Sarkar's " Law of 

(new edition, 262) ; Kiaherikant Qo- Adoption," p. 229. 

aioamee v. Purmanund Ooswamee 5 Sheo Singh Rai v. DaJcho (Mussu- 

(1810), 2 W. Macn. 175. mri) (1878), 5 I. A. 87 ; 1 AIL 688 ; 

2 Bijoy Krishna KarmaJcar v. Ranjit 2 C. . B. 193; Asharfi Kunwar v. 
Lai Karmakar (1911), 38 Calo. 694. Rup Chand (1908), 30 All. 197. See 

8 Haimun Chull Siny (Raja) v. the latter case as to the right of a 

Ghunsheam Swig (Koomar) (1834), 2 senior widow to adopt without the 

Kuapp, 203 ; 5 W. B. P. C. 69. (The concurrence of the junior widow, 

decision in this case was limited to 6 Sheo Singh Rai v. DakTto (Mus&u- 

the district of Etawah, but it has mut) (1878), 5 I. A. 87 ; 1 All. 688; 

been accepted as declaratory of the 2 C. L. B. 193; Manohar Lai v. 

law of the Benares school.) Chowdhry Banarsi Das (1907), 29 All. 495. 

Pudum Singh v, Koer Oodey Swgh 7 Lakhmi Chand v. Oatto Bai (1886), 

(1869), 12 M. L A. 350 ; 2 B. L. B. 8 All. 319. 

(P., 0.) 101 ; 12 W. B. P. 0. 1 ; TulsU 8 Asharfi Kunwar v. Ru$ Qhand 

Mam v,, Behari Lai (1889), 12 All. (1908), 30 All. 197. 
328 ; 



120 



DRAVIDA SCHOOL. 



[CHAP. in. 



Dravida 
school. 



Arrah, 1 and in a case of the Oswal sect from Moorshedabad, 2 and also in 
an old case from Lower Bengal, 3 in which it does not appear to what sect 
the parties belonged. In a case in Madras, 4 it was held that the custom 
was not proved. 

According to the Dravida school, a widow can adopt 
either with her husband's express permission, 6 or, if there 
be no express or implied prohibition by him, with the assent 
of her husband's kindred, 6 at or about the time of the 
adoption. 7 

Prohibition by " Inasmuch as the authorities in favour of the widow's power to adopt 
with the assent of her husband's kinsmen proceed in a great measure upon 
the assumption that his assent to this meritorious act is to be implied 
whenever he has not forbidden it, so the power cannot be inferred when a 
prohibition by the husband either has been directly expressed by him, or 
can be reasonably deduced from his disposition of his property, or the 
existence of a direct line competent to the full performance of religious 
duties, or from other circumstances of his family, which afford no plea for 
a supersession of heirs on the ground of religious obligation to adopt a son 
in order to complete or fulfil defective religious rites, . . . The same 
reasons which justify a presumption of authority to adopt in the absence 
of express permission are powerful to exclude a presumptive prohibition 
to adopt when on a new and unforeseen occasion the religious duty arises." 8 
The assent may be withdrawn before the adoption. 9 

! In Madras it is established . . . that, unless there is some 



Failure ot 
disposition 
implying 
prohibition. 



Power co- 
sx tensive with 

that of express prohibition by the husband, the widow's power, at 

husband. c 



1 Hwnabh Per6ha& v, M andil Doss 
(1899)> 27 Calc. 379. 

B Mantis Chand Gokcha v. Jagat 
Seltani Pran&umari Btbi (1889), 17 
Gale. 51& It was also held in this 
case that the adoption of orthodox 
Hinduism does not affect the right. 

* Qowndnatii Ray (Malia Rajah) 
v. Gitlal Chand (1833), 5 Ben. ScL 
B. 276 (new edition, 322). 

4 Peria Ammani v. Krishnasami 
(1892), 16 Had. 182. 

5 Vdlanki Venkafa KrUTvw JRow 
(Rajah) v. Verikafa Mama LaJcshmi 
Narsayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1, at p. 9 ; 
1 Mad. 174, at p. 186 ,- 26 W. B. C. 
B, 21, at pp. 22, 23 ; Raghunadha (Sri) 
v. Brozokishoro (Sri) (1876), I. A. 
164; 1 Mad. 69; 25 W. B. C. B. 
291 * ArundactiAmmal v. Kuppammal 
(1867), 3 Mad. H. C. 283. 

8 Collector of Madwa v. Moottoo 
(186S), Z2 M. 



LA. 307; 1 B. L. B. (P. <X) 1 ; 10 
W. B. P. C, 17 ; RagJiumdha (Sri) v. 
Brozokislioro (Sri) (1876), 3 I. A t 
154, at p, 191 ; 1 Mad. 69, at p. 81$ 

25 W. B, C. B. 291, at p. 302 ; Fe/- 
lanki Venkata Krishna Row (JRajah) 
v. Venlcata Rama Lah&hmi Narsayya 
(1876), 4 I A. 1 ; 1 Mad, 174 ; 26 
W. B. C. B. 21 ; Parasara Bhattar v. 
Ranqaraja Bhattar (1880), 2 Mad 
202; ArundadiAmmalv.JKuppammal 
(1867), 3 Mad. H. C. 283. 

7 A consent previously obtained 
from a deceased sapinda is not 
sufficient: Mamiv.SiMarayar(l9ll), 

26 Mad. 145. 

8 Collector of Madura v. Moottoo 
Ramatinga Sathupatfy (1868), 12 M. 
I. A. 397, at pp. 443, 445,- 1 B. L. 
B. (P. C.) 1, at pp. 17, 18, 19 ; 10 ' 
W. B. P. C. 17, at pp. 24, 25. 

9 Mami v. Subbarayar (1911), 36 
Mad. 145, at p. 147. 



CHAP. III.] DRAVIDA SCHOOL* 121 

least with concurrence of sapindas in cases where that is 
required, is co-extensive with that of the husband/' * 

The power to adopt with the assent of the husband's kinsmen 
applies to every case in which a widow might make an adoption 
under the express authority of her husband. 2 

Thus she can adopt on the death of a natural son, 3 and she can take 
successive sons in adoption on the death of sons previously adopted, either 
with the assent of her husband 4 or of his kinsmen. 

Among the Nambudn Brahmins in Malabar in theory the widow's 
power is as under the Dravida school, but in its application the husband's Brtlhmins * 
authority is presumed, unless there is an express prohibition, at any rate 
when the adopting widow is the surviving member of the illamf 

" Where the husband's family is ... undivided, . . . the Consent of 
father of the husband, if alive, might, as the head of the sufficient 
family and the natural guardian of the widow, be competent oin aim> * 
by his sole assent to authorize an adoption by her." 6 

Where the father is not alive, it was said in the Ratnnad 
case 7 that "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/* 
but an adoption with the consent of the manager of the joint 
family, who is acting lona fide, would apparently be upheld. 8 

In the latter case, and also probably in the case of a consent 
by the father, as head of the family, such due consideration of 
the propriety of the adoption would be necessary, 9 as is required 
in the case where the family is separate. 10 

1 Ourulingaswami (Sri Baluau) v. other members was required did not 

Ramalakshmamma(SriBalusu) (1899), arise (see p. 188). 
26 I. A. 113, at p. 128 ; 22 Mad. 398, Collector of Madura v. Mooitoo 

at p. 408 ; 3 C. W. KT. 427, at pp. 436, Ramahnga Sathupaihy (1868), 12 M, 

437; 1 Bom. L. B. 226. I. A. 397, at pp. 441, 442 ; 1 B. L. 

* VeUanki Venkata Krishna Row ft. (P. C.) 1, at p. 16; 10 W, R. P. 
(Rajah) v. Venkata Mama Lakshmi C. 17, at p. 23. 

Narsayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1, at p. 10 ; 7 Ibid. 

1 Mad. 174, at p. 187 ; 26 W. R. C. 8 See Raghunada (Sri) v. JBrozo* 

E. 21, at p. 23. JcisJioro (Sri) (1876), 3 L A. 154* at 

* Ibid. p. 191 ; i Mad, 69, s&<ip. 81 ; 25 W. 

* Parasara BJwttar v. Rangaraja, R. 0. R. 291, at p. 302 ;- Sarkar's " Law 
Bhattar (1880), 2 Mad. 202, at p. 205. of Adoption,"^. 259. 

5 Vasudevan v. Secretary of State * See Kaftwabdi Qanesa Ratnamai- 
(1887), 11 Mad, 157, at p. 179. In yar v. Qdpala Ratnamaiyar (1880), 7 
ihi$ case the widow was the sole stir- I. 4/f73, at pp. 177, 178, 179; 2 
viving member of the ittam, so the JCaU 270, at pp. 279, 280, 281. 
question whether the consent of tlw^' 10 Post, p. 122. 



122 DRAVIDA SCHOOL* [CHAP, 111. 

" Even in the case of an undivided family, when a widow 
of a member thereof makes an adoption without the authority 
of her husband or the assent of her father-in-law, it cannot be 
taken to be the settled law that the assent of all the then 
surviving members of the coparcenary is absolutely necessary." l 
The consent of kinsmen is required on account of the incapacity 
of women to act rather than to procure the consent of all whose 
interests will be defeated by the adoption. 2 

Where the joint family consists of several branches, it would 
seem to be sufficient to obtain the consent of the branch to 
which the husband belonged. 3 

It is clear that when the family is undivided the requisite 
authority cannot be sought for outside the family. 4 
Separate. Where the widow has taken by inheritance the separate 

estate of her husband, the consent of every kinsman, however 
remote, is not essential. The consent of the father-in-law 
would bo sufficient. 5 If the father-in-law be dead, " there 
should be such proof of assent on the part of the sapindas as 
should be sufficient to support the inference that the adoption 
was made by the widow, not from capricious or corrupt motives, 
or in order to defeat the interest of this or that sapinda, but 
upon a fair consideration, by what may be called a family 
council, of the expediency of substituting an heir by adoption 
to the deceased husband." 6 

1 See Verikatakrishnamma v. Anna- husband was not sufficient to validate 

purnamma (1899), 23 Mad. 486> at an adoption by a widow to which the 

pp. 487, 488. husband's undivided brother and the 

8 Collector of Madiera v. Moottoo head of the undivided family had not 

Ramalinga Saflntpathy (1868), 12 M. assented. 

L A. 307, at p. 442 ; 1 B. L. B. (P. C.) s Collector of Madura v. Moottoo 

i, at p. 17; 10 W. B. P. C. 17, at p. Ramalinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M, 

23 ; Narayanasami Naick v. Man* I. A. 397, at p. 442 ; 1 B. L. B. (P. 

gammal (1905), 28 Mad. 315, at p. C.) 1, at pp. 16, 17; 10 W. B. P. 0. 

319 ; Mami v. Subbarayar (1911), 36 17, at p. 23. 

Mad. 145, at p. 147. 6 Vdlariki VenJcata Krishna Row 

^HSlirkar's "Law of Adoption," (Rajah) v. Verikata Rama Lakshmi 

p. 259. Narsayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1, at p. 14 ; 

4 Raghunada (Sri) v. BrozoUsKoro 1 Mad. 174, at pp. 190, 191 ; 26 W. 
(Sri) (1876), 3 I. A. 154, at p. 191 j B. C. B. 21, at pp. 25, 26, explaining 
1 Mad. 69, at p. 81 s ; 25 W. B. C. B. Collector of Madura v. MooUoo Rama- 
291, at p. 302, approving of Rama- Unga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M. I. A. 
stiww fyen v. Rhagati Awtoial (1873), 397, at pp. 442, 443; 1 B. L. B. 
8 Maj Jur, 58, where it was held (P. C.) 1, at p. 17 ; 10 W. B. P. 0. 17, 
by the &kcta Court of Travancore at p. 23. In the latter case the con- 
that thes' assent of certain separate sea* of a majority of the sapindas 
dayadies (kinsmen) of the debased was held sufficient. See Parasara 



CHAP. III.] DRAVIDA SCHOOL, 123 

A widow should give to all the sapindas concerned an oppor- 
tunity to adviso her with regard to making an adoption, or 
against adopting a particular boy. 1 

The omission by the widow to ask the consent of one of two divided 
brothers of the deceased husband could not be justified by saying that it 
was known he would refuse. To consult him is essential to the widow's 
obtaining the mind of the kinsman on the question. 2 

Where the nearest sapinda refuses his consent upon improper grounds, 
the consent of a remoter sapinda will justify an adoption. 3 

The consent of the sapindas must bo free, and given solely Nature of 
in the due exercise of the discretion confided to them by the consent - - 
law with a view to the selection of a suitable boy for adoption. 
Thus a consent given on an untrue representation that the widow 
had received the permission of her husband is of no effect. 4 

In the Collector of Madura v, Moottoo Ramalinga 8at7i,upathy 6 the Gifts to pro- 
Judicial Committee said : " Though gifts to procure assent might be power- eure assent, 
ful evidence to show no adoption needed, they do not in themselves go 
to the root of tho legality of an adoption," but there is apparently no 
doubt that a consent obtained only by a money payment and without 
proper consideration of the propriety of the adoption, would vitiate an 
adoption, 

" There is nothing improper in a sapinda proposing to give his assent to 
a widow adopting his own son, if such son be the nearest sapinda, and 
refusing to give his assent to her adopting a stranger or more distant 
sapinda, if there be no reasonable objection to the adoption of his own 

BJwUar v. ftangarafa Bhattar (1880), 345. 

2 Mad. 202, at p. 200, in which case a Hid. 

tho assent of some wtpitidatt wiw held 8 VcnJmtaraMa Eajit v. Papamma 

sufficient on it* being shown that tho (1914), 39 Mad, 77. 

consent of tho otherw wan refused * Raghunadha (Sri] v. Brozoleishoro 

from interested or improper motives, (Nri) (187C), 3 I. A. 154, at p. 103 ; 

or without a fair exercino of diBcro* 1 Macl, 00, at p, 82 ; 25 W. E. C. R. 

tion. Boo also Venkatakrifihmmma v. 201, at pp. 302, 303 ; KarunabdU 

Annapurnamma (1809), 23 Mad. 480, (fancfta Ratnamaiyar v. Gopafa Ralna* 

where ono sapinda, without giving maiyar (1880), 7 I. A. 173; 2 Mad. 

any wsason, refused to consent. As 270; Venkamma (Jonnalagadda) v. 

to tho necessity for a consideration Sulrahmaniam (Jonnaktgadda) (1900), 

by tho aapindas, sou ltayhmad/M 34 I. A. 22 j 30 Mad. 50; 11 0. W. 

(Sri) v. BrozoMtfioro (Sri) (1870), 3 N. 345; Bom. L, B. 89; 8. C. in 

I A. 154, at pp. 192, 103 ; 1 Mad Court below, Subrahmanyaw, v. Yen- 

(JO, at pp. 82, 83 ; 25 W. K. 0, K. kanma (1903), 20 Mad. 627. See 

291, at pp. 302, 303; Karwwbdhi ftawkoti Ammal v. Balamndaia 

(faneaa ftalmmiyar v. (Joftala Xtatn<t- Mudaliar (1911), 30 Mad, 10. 

maiyar (1880), 7 L A. 173; 2 Mad. * (3808), 12 M. L A. 397, at p. 

270. In this case Iho family was 443; 1 B. L. K (P. (X) 1, at p. 17 ; 10 

joint. W. E. P. 0. 17, at p. 24, 

1 Verikmma (Jonnalagad&t) v. DanaJcoti Ammal v. Balasundara 

B^mJmm^m (Jonnalagadda) (1900), MMiar (1911), 30 Mad. 19. 
34 L A. M i' M UUL 50 ; U 0, W. N, 



124 



MAHARASHTRA SCHOOL. 



[CHAP, in 



son," * or to his stipulating that his own share should not be reduced by 
the adoption. 2 

When the majority of the sapindas consent, it will be presumed that 
their assent was given on bond fide grounds, 3 

The assent must be to an adoption of a specified boy, and 
not to an adoption generally. It must be acted upon within 
a reasonable time, 4 and has no operation after the death of the 
person giving it, 5 

Senior widow. An adoption by the senior widow with the consent of the 
sapindas is valid without the consent of the junior widow ; 6 
but an adoption by the junior widow without the consent of 
the senior widow is invalid. 7 

According to the Maharashtra school a widow can adopt 
either with her husband's express permission 8 or without such 
permission, 9 if the estate be vested in her 10 and there be no 
express n or implied 12 prohibition by him. If the husband was 



Maharashtra 
school. 



1 Subrahmanyam v. Venkamma 
(1903), 26 Mad. 27, at p. 837. 

s Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Ranga* 
sami Ayyangar (1907), 30 Mad. 450. 

3 VenkataTcrishnamma v. Annapur- 
namma (1899), 23 Mad. 486, at p. 488. 

4 See Suryanarayana v. Venkata- 
ramana (1903), 26 Mad. 681, at p. 
685. 

* See Ldkshmibai v. Vishnu Va&udev 
Bete (190$), 29 Bom. 410 ; 7 Bom. 
L. B. 436. 

6 Narayanasami Naick v. Mangam- 
mal (1905), 28 Mad. 315. See post, 
p. 126. As to a joint adoption, see 
ante, p. 115. 

7 Venkatappa Nayanim, Bahadur 
(Rajah) v. Damara Kenya Rao (1915), 
39 Mad. 772. 

8 Dinlar Sitaram Prabhu v. Ganesh 
Shiiram Prabhu (1879), 6 Bom. 505 ; 
G. C. Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 
228. 

9 Colkctor of Madura v. Moottoo 
Ramalinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M. 
I. A. 397, at p. 436; 1 B. L. R. 
*(P. C.) 1, at p. 12 ; 10 W. B. P. C. 17, 
at p. 21 ; Gopal Balkrishna Kenjale 
v. Vishnu Raghunath Kenjale (1898), 
23 Bom. 250 ; Ramchandra Bliagavan 
v. Jfagi KanabJtai (1896), 22 Bom. 
558, at pp. 566, 568; Amava v. 
liahadgawfa (1896), 22 Bom. 416, 
at 418; Qavdappa v. Qirmaflappa 



(1894), 19 Bom. 331, at p. 337 ; 
Vandravan Jekisan (Patel) v. Mamlal 
Chunilal (Paid] (1890), 15 Bom. 
565; Ramji v. Ghamau (1879), 6 
Bom. 498; Rupcfoand Hindumal v. 
Ralchmabai (1871), 8 Bom. H. C. (A. 
C.) 114; JRa&hmabai v. EadJwbai 
(1868), 5 Bom. H. C, (A. 0.) 181, 
and earlier cases cited therein ; 
"Mayukha," chap. iv. s. 5, paras. 
17, 18. 

10 Ramfi v. Ghamau (1879), 6 Bom. 
498, at pp. 503, 504 ; Dinkar Sitaram 
Prabhu v. Ganesh Shivram Prabhu 
(1879), 6 Bom. 505. 

11 Gopal Balkri&hna Kenjale v. 
Vishnu Raghunath Kenjale (1898), 
23 Bom. 250, at p. 256; Kamchandra 
Bhagavan v. Mulji Nanabhai (1896), 

22 Bom. 558, at p. 566 ; Vandravan 
Jekisan (Patel) v. Manilal Chunilal 
(Patel) (1890), 15 Bom. 565, at p. 
574 ; Bayabai v. Bala (1866), 7 Bom. 
H. C. App. i. ; Rupchand Sindumal 
v. Ralchmabai (1871), 8 Bom. H. 0, 
(A. C.), 114, 

12 Gopal Balkrishna Kenjale v. 
Vishnu Raghunath Kenjale (1898), 

23 Bom. 250, at p. 256. In Vandra- 
van Jekisan (Patel) v. Manilal Chuni- 
lal (Patel) (1890), 15 Bom. 565, at 
p. 574, the Court treated an express 
prohibition as the only qualification 
to the power of the widow, but it is 



CHAP, II L] 



MAHAEASHTRA 



125 



undivided in estate l she cannot adopt without eithor his 
express permission 2 or the consent of his coparceners. 3 

Where she has no express authority, the widow derives her power from Implied 
authority presumed to have been given to her by her husband.* Such {JS^So^ ! 
authority is implied even when the husband was a minor at the time of 
his death, 5 and even where the widow lives apart from her husband. 6 

It has been held that the husband's authority would not be presumed Adoption of 
in the case of the adoption of an only son, an act which, although not only 8on * 
illegal, was considered sinful, 7 but apparently that decision would not now 
be followed, 8 and it would be held that in the absence of prohibition, her 
authority is co-extensive with that of her husband. 9 



submitted that the observations of 
the Judicial Committee in the Col- 
lector of Madura v. Moottoo Rama- 
lingo, Sathupatiiy (1868), 12 M. I. A. 
397, at pp. 443, 445 ; 1 B. L. B. (P. 
C.) 1, at pp. 17, 18, 19 ; 10 W. B. P. 
C. 17, at pp: 24, 25, ante, p. 120, 
apply equally to a case governed by 
the Maharashtra school. In Baydbai 
v. Sola (1866), 7 Bom. H. C. App. i., 
at p. xx., the husband on his death- 
bed refused to take a son in adoption. 
This was held to prevent the widow 
adopting, and in Dnyanoba v. Radka- 
6ai, Bom. P. J. 1894, p. 22, where 
the husband had repudiated his wife 
on account of her misconduct, a pro- 
hibition was implied. Lafahmappa 
v. Ramava (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 362. 
In Malgauda Paragauda v. Bdbaji 
Dattu (1912), 37 Bom. 107 ; 14 Bom. 
1121, when the deceased had left all 
his property to his daughters the Court 
considered that there was an implied 
prohibition of adoption. 

1 Whether or not the husband 
possessed separate property, see Rag- 
Tiunadka (Sri) v. Brozolcishoro (Sri} 
(1876), 3 I. A. 154, at pp. 191, 192 ; 
1 Mad. 69, at pp. 81, 82 ; 25 W. B. 
C. B. 291, at p. 302. 

2 JBachoo HurTcisoTtdas v. Mankore- 
Ui (1907), 34 L A. 107; 31 Bom. 
373 ; 11 C. W. N. 769 ; 9 Bom. L. B. 
646 ; S, C. in Court below (1904), 29 
Bom. 51 ; 6 Bom. L. B. 268. 

3 Amava v. Malwdgauda (1896), 
22 Bom. 416, at p. 418; Ramji v. 
Ghtmau (1879), 6 Bom. 498 ; Dinkar 
Sti&ram PrabTtu v. Ganesk Sktvram 

\pfa$fa (1879), 6 Bom. 505. 

* t&$3tyflp& Bayu v. Jivaji Krishna 
(1900), 25 Bom. 306, at p. 311 ; 2 



Bom. L. B. 1101 ; Amava v. Mahad- 
gauda (1896), 22 Bom. 416, at p. 41$ ; 
Ramchandra JBhagavan v. Mulji Nana- 
ITiai (1896), 22 Bom. 558, at p. 567 ; 
Keshav RamJcrishna v. Govind Ganesk 
(1884), 9 Bom. 94 at p. 97 ; Lafah- 
mappa v. Ramava (1866), 12 Bom. 
H. C. 304 ; RaMimabai v. Radhabai 
(1868), 5 Bom. H. C. (A. C.) 181, at 
p. 192. In Lalcshmtbai v. Sarasvatibai 
(1899), 23 Bom. 789, at p. 794; 
1 Bom. L. B. 420, Jenkins, C,J., 
inclined to the opinion that in the 
Bombay Presidency the widow's right 
is inherent and not merely delegated. 
This view is supported by Bombay 
authorities (see " Nirnaya Sindhu " Sri 
Venkateshwar, ed. p. 229 ; " Vya- 
vahara Mayukha (Mandlik)," p. 42 ; 
"Samskara Kaustaba," Benares ed., 
Saka 1783, p. 44), but is scarcely 
possible having regard to the observa- 
tions of the Judicial Committee in 
Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Rama- 
linga Satlupathy (1868), 12 M. I. A. 

397, at p. 436 ; 1 B. L. B. (P. C.) 1, 
at p. 12 ; 10 W. B. P. C. 17, at p. 21. 

5 Vandravan Jefcisan (Patet) v. 
Mamlal Chunflal (Pate!) (1890), 15 
Bom. 565. 

6 Lakshmibai v. Sara$vatibai (1899), 
23 Bom. 789 ; 1 Bom, L. B. 420. 

7 Ldkshmappa v. Ramaw (1875), 
12 Bom. H. C. 364. 

8 See Gurulingaswami (Sri Balusu} 
v, Ramalafafanamma (Balusu) (1899), 
26 I. A. 113, at p. 128 ; 22 Mad. 

398, at p. 408 ; 3 C. W. N. 427, at 
p. 437 ; 1 Bom. L. B. 226, post, pp. 
145, 146. 

9 See Lakshmibai v. Sarasvatibai 
(1899), 23 Bom. 789; 1 Bom. Ik-fc^ 



126 



SCHOOL, 



[CHAP. m. 



Undivided 
family. 



Where more 
than one 
widow. 



As under the Dravida school, 1 an assent given by her father- 
in-law, 2 as the head of the family, and as natural guardian of 
the widow, to an adoption in his lifetime, 3 would validate an 
adoption by the widow of a member of the undivided family. 
The rules as to the nature and sufficiency of the consent required 
for the adoption by a widow governed by the Dravida school 4 
apparently apply to the case of adoption in an undivided family 
governed by the Maharashtra school of law. 

Where the family is divided, an elder widow can adopt 
without the consent of the junior widow ; 5 but not so as to 
devest property which has vested in the younger widow as heir 
to a son. 6 The junior widow cannot adopt without the consent 
of the senior widow, 7 unless, perhaps, where the latter be in- 
capacitated, as where she is leading an irregular life. 8 

A joint adoption by the widows seems possible in Western 
India. 9 

Mithiia school. According to the MitJnla school, a widow cannot under any 
circumstances adopt a son to her husband. 10 She can under 
that school adopt a son to herself in the Kntrima form. 11 
Punjab. In the Punjab the custom varies in different localities. 12 

A minor 13 widow, acting under an express power given to 



Adoption by 
minor widow. 



i Ante, pp. 121, 122. 

a Vithoba v. JBapu (1890), 15 Bom. 
110; Oopal Bal/krishw Kenjale v. 
Vishnu Maghunath Kenjate (1898), 
23 Bom. 250, at pp. 255, 256. See 
Raimji v. Ghamau (1879), 6 Bom. 
498, at p. 505. The observations of 
the Judicial Committee in Raghunad- 
ha (Sri) v. Brozokishoro (Sri) (1876), 
3 I. A. 154, at p, 191 ; 1 Mad, 69, at 
p. 81 ; 25 W. B. C. K. 291, at p. 302, 
seem applicable to the Maharashtra 
school as well as to the Dravida 
school. 

a Lakshmibai v. Vishnu Va&udev 
Bde (1905), 29 Bom. 410; 7 Bom. 
L. B. 436. 

* Ante, pp. 121, 122. 

5 Rakhmabai v. RadJwbai (1886), 5 
Bom. H. C. (A. C) 181, at p. 192 ; 
Ifamji v. Ghamau (1879), 6 Bom. 
498, at p. 503. 

6 See taJ&Jmibai v. Sarasvatibai 
(1899), 23, Bom. 789, at p. 794; 
1 Bom. 3U R* 4Q; Anmdibai v. 

(1904)> 28 Bom, 461 j 6 



Bom. L. B. 464; see post, pp. 193, 194. 

7 Padajirav v. Ramrav (1888), 13 
Bom. 160. 

8 Steele, 187, 188. 

9 Indar Kunum (Maharani) v. 
Jaipal Kunwar (Maharani) (1888), 

15 I. A. 127, at pp. 144, 145; 15 
- Calc, 725, at pp. 746, 747. See ante, 

p. 115. 

10 " Dattaka Mimansa," s. 1, para. 

16 ; " Vivada Chmtamam " (Tagore's 
translation), pp. 74, 75; W. Mac- 
naghten's "Hindu Law," vol. i. pp. 
95, 100. See Jairam Dhami v. Mman 
Dhami (1830), 5 Ben. gel. R. 3 (new 
edition, 3), but that was not a Mithiia 
case, and therefore was not decided 
according to the MitMla law, although 
Mithiia authorities were cited. 

11 Post, pp. 157-159. 

12 Tupper's " Punjab Customary 
Law," vol. ii. pp. 154, 178, 205; vol. 
111. pp. 78 et se$. f 87, 89, 90. 

18 I.e. who has not attained the 
age of majority according to 
law (ante, pp. 46, 47). 



CHAP. HI.] 



ADOPTION BY WIDOW, 



127 



her by her husband, can take in adoption, 1 provided, at any 
rate, she has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to 
comprehend the nature of the act. 2 The same rule would 
apparently also apply to an adoption under the Dravida school 
with the authority of the sapindas? and to a case under the 
Maharashtra school, where similar authority had been given. 
It is apparently unsettled whether a minor widow can, in a 
case governed by the Maharashtra school, act upon the implied 
authority of her husband. 4 

A widow cannot adopt unless she be the widow of the last when 

can, adopt, 

full owner, 5 or the estate is vested in her as heir to her son, 
legitimate or adopted, who has died unmarried, or has left no 
child or widow surviving him, 6 or (it is submitted) unless the 
circumstances be such that the estate will vest in the adopted 
son on his adoption. 7 



1 Mondakini Dasi v. Adinath Dey 
(1890), 18 Calc. 69; Haradlmn Rai 
v. Biswanath Rai (1815), W. Mac- 
naghten's "Hindu Law,'* vol ii. p. 
180; Sircar's * e Vyavastha Darpa- 
na," 2nd ed , p. 769. Contra G. 0. 
garkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 249. 
It is there suggested that an adoption 
by a minor widow is voidable, but it 
is submitted that, if it be otherwise 
unobjectionable, it cannot bo avoided* 
The Hindu law does not contemplate a 
voidable adoption. See Kovvidi Satti- 
raju v. Pattamsetti Venkataswami 
(1916), 32 Mad. L. J. 119. 

2 Mondakini Dasi v. Adinath Dey 
(1890), 18 Oalc. 69, at p. 72. In 
this case the widow was 11 or 32 
years of age, but, as the boy to be 
adopted had been designated by her 
husband, the discretion to be exer- 
cised by her was limited. See Kov- 
vidi Sattiraju v. Pattamsetti Venkata- 
swcmi (1916), 32 Mad. L, J. 119, from 
which it would seem that a widow 
cannot adopt until she has attained 
majority under Hindu law. See ante, 
p. 107. 

3 See Mayno's " Hindu Law," 8th 
ed., p. 148. 

4 Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p.250. 
, 5 Payapa Akkapa Patel v. Appanna 

Bom. 327, at p. 329'; 
K&wjale v. Vishnu 
3 Bom, 




250 ; Vasndeo VisJmu Manohar v. 
Ramchandra Vinayah Modak (189C), 
22 Bom. 551. As to the application 
of this principle to coparcenary pro- 
perty, and to an impartible zemindari, 
see Madana Mohana v. Purushotfiamu 
(1914), 38 Mad. 1100. See also cases, 
post, pp. 130, 131. 

6 Vellank^ Venkata Krishna, Row 
(Rajah) v. Venkata Rama Ldkshmi 
Narsayya (1876), 4 L A. 1 ; 1 Mad. 
174 ; 26 W. B. C. B. 21 ; Oavfappa 
v. Girimallappa (1894), 19 Bom. 331, 
RavjiVinayakrav Jaggannafh Sharikar- 
sett v. Lafahmibai (1897), 11 Bom. 381, 
at p. 397. Seo post, pp. 130, 131. 

7 As was the case in Deeno Moyee 
Dossee (Sreemutty) v. Doorga Pershad 
Hitter (1865), 3 W. R. M. A. 6, 
where a Hindu, governed by the 
Bengal school of law, left his pro^ 
perty to a boy to be adopted by the 
widow of his son, who had pre- 
deceased him. In this case the boy 
took under the will, but the Court 
treated the adoption as valid, and in 
Deeno Moyee Dossee (Sreemutty) v. 
Tarachurn Koondoo C'howAlvry (1865), 
Bourke, A. 0. 0. 48 ; 3 W. R. M. A. 
7, note, which referred to the same 
adoption, the Court held that tho 
widow took as heir of the son so 
adopted and thus upheld the adop- 
tion. T^tere might also be the case of, 
$ woman taking as heir of br son's soity , 



128 TIME FOB EXERCISE. [CHAP. III. 

It was said in a Bombay case x that the mere fact that the adopting 
widow is not the widow of the last male holder would not make an 
adoption by her spiritually invalid, 2 and in the same case it was held that 
the defect in the adoption was cured by the assent of the person in whom 
the estate is vested by inheritance, 3 and that an adoption is validated, 
where there has been a ratification by conduct or acquiescence. 4 

A woman in the Bombay Presidency who inherits as widow of a gotraja 
sapinda, 5 cannot adopt so as to confer upon the adopted son a right to the 
property so inherited by her. 6 There seems to bo no reason why she should 
not validly adopt to her husband. 

Where a son who is a coparcener in joint property governed 
by the Mitakshara school of law, or being governed by either 
school of law is possessed of separate property, predeceases his 
father there seems to be no reason why his widow should not 
take a son in adoption, and, quite apart from the possession of 
property, why such adoption should not be valid at any rate 
for spiritual purposes. 7 

Sastri G. L. Sarkar says in his " Law of Adoption " 8 

Competition " If the ancestral estate is vested in the mother-in-law by reason of her 
between son predeceasing his father, it would appear that both the mother-in-law 

and daughter- and daughter-in-law are competent to adopt. What has been laid down 
m-law, i s that the adoptive father's estate must be vested in the adopting widow, 

in order that an adoption made by her may be valid. If the daughter-in- 
law adopts first, then the mother-in-law cannot make an adoption during 
the life of the son adopted by the daughter-in-law, for the father-in-law 
cannot under that circumstance be considered as destitute of male issue, 
there being that grandson by adoption in existence. But if the mother-in- 
law adopts first, then the daughter-in-law cannot be precluded thereby 
from making an adoption for the spiritual benefit of her husband who 
would not be benefited by his mother's adoption. This distinction would 
apply to all similar cases in all the schools." 

Time for In the absence of express direction to the contrary. 9 a power 

-*--> of 

1 Payapa v. Appanna (1898), 23 Patlamsetti Verikataswami (1916), 32 
Bom. 377, followed m SMdappa v. Mad. L. J. 119. 

Ningangauda (1914), 38 Bom. 724; 5 Post, p. 412. 

16 Bom. L. It. 663, 6 Datto Govind Kulkarni v. Pandu* 

2 Ibid. rang Vinayak (1908), 32 Bom. 499 ; 

3 Quaere as to this, see#o,?rf, pp. 156, 10 Bom. L. B. 692. 

157. 7 See Payapa v. Appanna (1898), 

* Quaere as to this. The invalidity 23 Bom. 327 ; Shidappa v. Ningan- 

of an adoption cannot, it is submitted, gauda (1914), 38 Bom. 724 ; 16 Bom. 

be cured by any subsequent event. L. B. 663. 

It is submitted that the validity o an 8 P. 264. 

adoption can only be tested by the 9 See Mutsaddi Lai v. Kundan Lai 

state of affairs at the time of the (1906), 33 I. A. 55; 28 All. 377; 8 

adoption. See Kowidi Sattiraju v. Bom. L. B. 371. 



power. 



CHAP. III.] 



SUCCESSIVE ADOPTIONS, 



129 



of adoption, whether express or Implied, 1 may be exercised at 
any time, provided it be not exhausted, or be not at an end.s 

Adoptions made twelve, 3 twenty-two, 4 twenty-five, 5 fifty-two, 6 and 
even seventy-one 7 years after the death of the adoptive father have been 
upheld. ' 

Except, perhaps, in Bengal, a power, which does not expressly Successive 
or impliedly prohibit successive adoptions, is not exhausted by 
having been once exercised. 8 

According to the Bengal authorities, such permission is exhausted by 
having been once exercised ; 9 but in Kannepalli Suryanarayana v. Pucha 
VenJcata Ranama the Judicial Committee in dealing with a Madras case, 
say that they are unable to attach much weight to Qournaih Chowdhree v. 
Arnopoorna Chowdram,^ and also say, " The more liberal rule had been 
followed by the High Court of Bombay, as well as in Madras, and was not 
without support in Bengal (see Swendra Nandan v. Sadaja Kant Das 
Mahapatra, 1 * and the Ramnad case 13 )." It is therefore unlikely that, if 
a Bengal case on this subject were to come before the Judicial Committee, 
the Bengal authorities would be followed. See ante, p. 117. 

In the case of an impartible zemindari where the document authorized 



i P. Macn. 157. 

a Post, pp. 130, 131. 

3 Anon. (1814), 2 Mori. Dig. 18. 

* Masker Buchajee v. Narro Rag- 
hunath (1826), Bom. Sel. B. 24. 

5 Giriowa v. Bhimaji Raghunath 
(1884), 9 Bom. 58. 

6 Brvjbhookunjec Muharaj (Sree) v. 
Ookoolootsaojee Muharaj (Sree) (1816), 
1 Borr. 181 (edition of 1862, p. 217). 

7 Raje Vyankatrav Anandrav Nim- 
balkar v. Jayavantrav (1867), 4 Bom. 
H. C. (A. C.) 191. 

8 Kann&palli Suryanarayana v. 
Pucha Venkata Ramana (1906), 33 I. 
A. 145 ; 29 Mad. 382 ; 10 C. W. N , 
921 ; 8 Bom. L, B. 700 ; S. C in 
Court below, Suryanarayana v. Venka- 
taramana (1903), 26 Mad. 681. See 
Parasara Bhattar v. Rangaraja Bhattar 
(1880), 2 Mad. 202 ; Vellanki Venkata 
Krishna Row (Rajah) v. Venkata 

'Rama Lakshmi Narsayya (1876), 4 
I. A. 1, at p. 10; 1 Mad. 174, at 
pp. 186, 187 ; 26 W. K. C. B 21, at 
p. 23. Cf. Dharam Kunwar (Rani) v. 
Balwant Singh (1912), 39 L A. 142 : 
34 All. 398; 16 C. W. N. 675; 14 
Bom. I/. B. 485. 

* PwrwaMMnd Bhuttychamj v. 
Ooomakunt Jjakoree (1828), 4 Ben. 

H.L. 



Sel. B. 318 (new edition, 404); 
Gournath Chowdhree v. Arnopoorna 
Chowdhrain, Ben. S. B. A. 1852, p. 
332 ; Deeno Moyee Dossee (Sreemutty) 
v. Tarachwrn JKoondoo Chowdhry 
(1865), 1 Bourko (A. 0, C.) 48; 
3 W. B. M. A. 7, note ; Moben- 
drololl Mookerjee v. RooMney Dabee 
(1864), Coryton, 42, at p. 46; P. 
Maon. 156, 179. Sir W. Macnaghten 
(vol. i. pp. 86-90) treats the point 
as disputed. He says that according 
to the doctrine of the "Dattaka 
Mimansa," the second adoption would 
clearly be illegal; but that Jagan- 
natha holds that it would be valid, 
the object of the first being defeated. 

10 (1906), 33 I. A. 145 ; 29 Mad. 
382 ; 10 C. W. N. 921 ; 8 Bom. L. B. 
700. 

11 Ben. S. D. A. 1852, p. 332. 

12 (1891), 18 Calo. 385. In that 
case there had been permission to 
adopt three sons in succession. 

13 Collector of Madura v. Moottoo 
Mamalinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M. 
I. A. 397, at p. 443 ; 1 B. L. B. P. 
C. 1, at pp- 17, 18 ; 10 W. B. P. C. 
17, at p. 24. This was a Madras 



130 



OF POWEB, 



[CHAP. in. 



Ter nination 
of power* 



successive adoptions, it was held that the power could not be exercised 
where there was a person in existence (widow of a later male owner) 
who could legally adopt. 1 

A widow's power to adopt is at an end for all purposes as 
soon as the estate of her husband is vested in an heir 2 (other 
than herself 3 ), of his natural or adopted 4 son, or of his son's 
son, 5 or son's son's son who has inherited to him, and is not 
revived by the death of such heir, even when on such death she 
herself succeeds to the property which belonged to her husband, 
and therefore by adopting, devests no estate but her own. 6 

This rule applies, whether there be an express power given 
by the husband, or such power be implied, 7 as in the Maharashtra 



1 Madana Mohana v. Purushothama 
(19H), 38 Mad. 1105, at p. 1120, per 
Seshagiri Ayyar, J. 

2 In RamknsJina Ramchandra v. 
Shamrao Yeshwant (1902), 26 Bom. 
526 ; 4 Bom L. B. 315, the son had 
left a son, and in Annammah v. Mabbu 
Bah Reddy (1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 108, 
ho had left an adopted son. In the 
following cases the son had left a 
widow : Bhoobun Moyee Debia (Mus- 
sumat) v. Earn Kishme Acharj Chowd- 
hry (1865), 10 M. I. A. 279, at p. 310 ; 
3 W. B. P. C. 15, at p. 18 ; Pudma 
Coomari Debi v. Court of Wards 
(1881), 8 L A. 229, at p. 245 ; 8 Calc. 
302, at p. 309 ; Tarachurn Chatterji 
v. Suresh Ghunder Mocker ji (1889), 
16 I. A. 166 ; 17 Calc 122 ; Tha- 
yammal v Venkatarama Aiyan (1887), 
14 I A. 67, at pp. 70, 71 ; 10 Mad. 
205, at p. 209 ; Amava v. Mahadgau- 
da (1896), 22 Bom 416 ; Keshav 
Ram Krishna v. Gouind Ganesh (1884), 
9 Bom. 94; Mamkyamala Bose v. 
Nanda Kumar Bose (1906), 33 Calc. 
1306 ; 11 C. W. N. 12 ; Amutya Clia- 
fan Seal v. Kali Das Sen (1905), 32 
Calc. 861. 

3 Vellanbi Venkata Krishna Row 
(Rajah) v. Venkata Rama Lakshmi 
Narsayya (1876), 4 I. A. 1 ; 1 Mad. 
174; 26 W. B. C. B. 21 ; VenJcappa 
Bapu v. Juaji Krishna (1900), 25 
Bom. 306, at p. 310 ; 2 Bom. L. B. 
1101 ; Gavdappa v. Ginmallappa 
(1894), 19 Bom. 331. See Payapa 
AkJeapa Patel v. Appanna (1898), 23 
Bom, 327, %nd, oases port, p, 193, 



notes 5, 6. 

4 See Bhoobun Moyee Delia (Mus- 
sumat) v. Ram Kishore Acharj Cfiow- 
dhry (1865), 10 M I. A. 279, at 
p. 310 ; 3 W. B. P. C. 15, at p. 18 ; 
Manik Chand Golecha v. Juyat Set- 
tarn Prankumari Bibi (1889), 17 Calc. 
517. 

5 In Faizuddin AH Khan v. Tin* 
cown Saha (1895), 22 Cale. 565, the 
son was succeeded by his mother, and 
in Drobomoyee Chowdhrain v. Shama 
Churn Chowdhry (1885), 12 Calc 246, 
by his grandmother. Gavdappa v. 
Qmmallappa (1894), 19 Bom. 331. 

6 Pudma Coomari Debi v. Court of 
Wards (1881), 8 I. A. 229 ,- 8 Calc. 
302, reversing Puddo Kumaree Debee 
v. Juggut Kishore Acharjee (1879), 5 
Calc. 615. (This case also had the 
effect of overruling Bykant Monee 
Roy'v. Kistosoonderee Roy (1867), 7 
W. B 392.) Tha yammal v. Venkata- 
rama Aiyan (1887), 14 I. A 67, at 
pp. 70, 71 ; 10 Mad. 205, at p. 209 j 
Ramhrishna Ramclutndra v Shamrao 
Jeshwant (1902), 26 Bom. 526 ; 4 
Bom. L. B 315; Gavdappa v. CM- 
mallappa (1894), 19 Bom. 331 ; 
Krishnarav Trimbak Hasabnis v. 
Shankarrav Vinayak Hasabnis (1892), 
17 Bom. 164. 

7 A mava v. Mahadgauda (1896), 
22 Bom. 416 ; Keshav Ram Krishna 
v. Govind Ganesh (1S84), 9 Bom. 94 ; 
Ramchandra v. Shamrao (1902), 26 
Bom. 526, at p. 528. See Anandibai 
v. Kashibai (1904), 28 Bom, 461 ; 
6 Bern, L. B, 464, 



CHAP, III,] TERMINATION OF POWEB, 181 

school, or the power be exerciseable with the consent of the 
sapindas. 1 

This rule applies only to property vested by inheritance, 
and does not prevent the devesting of an interest acquired by 
survivorship in the case of a joint family. 2 

It is unsettled whether this rule applies in its entirety to an adoption Jains* 
by a Jain widow, who can adopt without the consent of her husband. 3 
It has been so applied in Bombay, 4 but in Calcutta it has been held 5 
that a Jain widow in whom the estate was vested can adopt, although 
her husband's adopted son had died leaving a son as his heir. Although 
the decision rested on the distinction between the power of a Jain widow 
and that of the widow of an ordinary Hindu, the Court seems to have 
acted on the view of the decision hi Bhodbunmioyetfs case, 6 which was 
accepted by the Calcutta High Court in Puddo Kiimarce, Delec v. Jvggut 
KisJiore Acharjee^ but which was not accepted by the Judicial Committee 
in the appeal from that decision. 8 

It has been attempted to extend the rule to the case where Death of son 
the son, although he has left no heir, other than the adopting merit of am " 



mother, had attained to full age and complete ceremonial 
capacity, 9 or had been married, 10 but this extension has not 
been recognized. 11 

It may be a question whether the power to adopt would not Surrender of 
be at an end when the widow has devested herself of the estate 
by surrender, or authorized alienation. 12 

It is submitted that in the case of a joint family governed Jo^t family. 
by the Mitakshara law, the power of a widow to adopt extends 
until partition. 13 

A widow of a deceased coparcener cannot adopt after the 

1 Thayammalv.VenkGdaramtf*Aiyaii 9 See Earn Soondur Singh v. Sur- 
(1887), 14 I. A. 67 ; 10 Mad. 205. banee Dossee (1874), 22 W. R, 0. 

2 See Madana Mohanaw. PwrustiQ* R. 121 ; Gfavdappa v. Girimattappa 
thama (1914), 38 Mad. 1105, per She- (1894), 19 Bom. 331, at p. 337; 
shagiri Ayyar, J. Amava v. Mahadgauda (1896), 22 

8 Ante, pp. 119, 120. Bom. 416, at p. 421 ; Verabhai Ajub- 

* Amava v. Mdhafyauda (1896), hai v. Hirdba (Bat) (1903), 30 I? A. 

22 Bom. 416. 234 ; 27 Bom. 492 ; 7 C. W. 3ST. 716 ; 

5 Manik Chand Oolecha v. Jagat 5 Bom. L. R. 534. 

Settani Pran Kumari Bili (1889), 17 10 YerikappaBapu v. Jivaji Krishna 

Calc. 518, at pp 537, 538, (1900), 25 Bom. 306, see p. 311 ; 2 

fi Bhoobun Moyee Debia (Mitssu- Bom. L. R. 1101. 

mat) v. Earn Kishore AcTiarj Ckowdhry u Cases in notes 9 and 10 above. 

(1865), 10 M. I. A. 277, at p. 310 ; 3 12 SeeSarkar's "Law of Adoption," 

W. Rw P. C. 15, at p. 18. p. 416. 

7 (1879), 5 Calc. 615 ' 13 See Sarkar's "Law of Adoption/' 

8 Pudma Coomari Debi v. Court of pp, 253, 254, 

8 Calc, 302, 



132 



REMARRIAGE. 



[CHAP, 



Unchaste 

widow. 



property has vested in a widow or other heir of the last survivor 
of the coparcenary, 1 

Remarriage, A widow by remarriage apparently loses her power to take 
iii adoption. 2 

It is unsettled whether an unchaste widow can adopt. 

In Sayamalal Dutt v. Sautfamini Dasi,* Norman, J., held that an 
unchaste widow, who was pregnant by the man with whom she was living 
in a state of concubinage, and who had not performed any expiation, could 
not take in adoption. This decision was based upon the alleged necessity 
for the performance of religious ceremonies, but, as the parties were Sudras, 
it is clear 4 that no religious ceremonies were necessary, and it is therefore 
doubtful whether this decision can be viewed as an authority. Where 
religious ceremonies are unnecessary (and it is by no means clear that in 
any case religious ceremonies are requisite in the case of adoption by a 
widow 6 ), there seems to be no other authority prohibiting adoption by an 
unchaste widow. If she be not actually pregnant, she can remove the 
bar, if it be one, by expiation. 6 

As a widow adopts, not for her own benefit, but for that of her deceased 
husband, it may seem hard that her want of chastity should deprive his 
manes of the benefits which, according to Hindu ideas, accrue from an 
adoption. 

Ceremonial ^ ie question whether a widow, who is in a stato of cere- 

monial impurity from the death or birth of a relation, and who 
has not performed the necessary expiation, is competent to 
adopt, is apparently the same as the question whether a man 
can under such circumstances^adopt. 7 

If she can, as apparently she can, depute a relation to perform such 
ceremonies, if any, as may be necessary, 8 there can be no objection to an 
adoption by her. There is, moreover, a question whether any religious 
c cremonies are necessary in the case of an adoption by a widow. 9 If none 
are necessary, her ceremonial impurity cannot affect the adoption. 

Adoption only A widow's power of adoption cannot be exercised unless the 

valid if hus- _ _____ _ 

band Goiilrl ~ ~~~~~ - - - " 



band could 
have adopted, 



1 Adivi Suryaprokasa Rao v. Nida* 
marty Gangaraju (1909), 33 Mad. 228. 

2 West and Biihler, p. 999, referred 
to in Panchappa v. Sangaribasawa 
(1899), 24 Bom. 89, at p. 94; 1 Bom. 
L. R. 543 ; Sarkar's "Law of Adop* 
tion," p. 251, see, however, Putlabai 
v. Makadu (1908), 33 Bom. 107; 10 
Bonu L. K 1134. 

3 (1870), 5 B. L. R, 362, 
* Post, p. 153. 

5 Post, p 155. 

6 See Thukoo Bate BUfa v. Ruma 



Baee Bfode (1824), 2 Borr. 446, at 
p. 456* 

7 Ante, pp. 110, 111. See Rangan- 
ayaJcamma v. Alwar Setti (1889), 13 
Mad. 214 ; JRavji VinayaJcrav Jaggan- 
nath Shankarsett v. LaTcahmibai 
(1887), 11 Bom. 381, at p. 395. 

8 See Lakshmibai v. JZamchandra 
(1896), 22 Bom. 590; Vijiarangan 
v. Lakshuman (1871), 8 Bom. H. C. 
(0.0.) 244; Sarkar's "Law of Adop- 
tion," p. 213. 

9 Post, p. 155. 



CHAP, III.] 



OBLIGATION. 



133 



circumstances are such as would have justified an adoption by 
her husband, if alive, 1 

Thus P she cannot adopt- a boy whom her husband could not have 
adopted, and she cannot adopt so long as a son, son's son, son's son's son 
of her husband be in existence. 2 During that time her power of adoption 
is in suspense. 3 In the event of the son, grandson, or great-grandson dying 
unmarried, or leaving no son or widow behind him, the power, if it still be 
in existence, 4 can be exercised. 5 

A widow is under no legal obligation to exercise a power of NO obligation 
adoption. 6 An express direction by the husband cannot bo 
enforced, 7 even if he directed the adoption of a particular boy. 8 
The widow does not, by the non-exercise of the power, forfeit 
any of her rights as widow, 9 or mother. 10 



1 Puttu Lai v. Parbati Kunwar 
(Musawmat) (1915), 42 I. A 155; 37 
All. 359 ; 19 0. W. N. 841 ; 17 Bom. 
L. R. 549. See ante, p. 103. 

2 Oopeelall v, Chundraolee BuJioojee 
(Mussamut Sree), (1872), I. A. Sup. 
Vol. 131 ; 11 B. L. R. 391 ; 19 W. R. 
C. R. 12. 

3 Gavdappa v. Oirimallappa (1894), 
19 Bom. 331, at p. 337. 

4 See ante, pp 130, 131. 

5 Gavdappa v. Girimallappa (1894), 
19 Bom. 331, at p. 337 ; Bylcant Mo- 
me Roy v. Kisto Soonderee Roy (1867), 

7 W. R. 0. R. 392. See Vellanfa 
Verikata Krislinh Row (Rajafi) v. 
Venkata Rama LaJcshmi Narsayya 
(1876), 4 I. A. 1 ; 1 Mad. 174 ; 26 
W. R. C. R. 21. 

G Bamundoss MooJcerjea v. Tarinee 
(Mussamut) (1858), 7 M. L A. 1C9, 
at p. 190 ; Mutsaddi Lai v. Kundan 
Lai (1906), 33 I. A. 55 ; 28 All. 377 ; 

8 Bom. L. R. 371 ; Uma Sunduri 
Dabee v. Sourobinee Dabee (1881), 7 
Gale. 288; 9 0. L. R. 83; Pearee 
Dayee (Mussamut) v. Hurbunsee Kooer 
(Mussamut) (1873), 19 W. R. 0. R. 
127; Deeno Moyee Dossee (Sree- 
mutty) v. Doorga, PersTiad Hitt&r 
(1865), 3 W. R. M. A. 6, at p. 7; 
Dino Moyee, Chowdhrain v. Rehling 
(1865), 2 W. R. M. A. 25; Rajcoo- 
vwree (Sreemutty) v. Nobocoomar 
MuTMck (1856), 1 Boul. 137; Sev. 
64l, note; Dyamoyee CJiouxXhrain v. 
Rasbeharee Singh, Ben, & P. A. 1852, 



1001, at p. 1013. See SJiamavahoo v. 
Dwarlcadas Vasanji (1878), 12 Bom. 
202. 

7 See Uma Sunduri Dalee v. Souro- 
linee Dabte (1881), 7 Calc. 288 ; 9 
C. L. R. 83 ; Dino Moyee Gliowdhrain 
v. Rehling (1865), 2 W. R. M. A. 25. 

8 See Prasannamayi Last v. Ka- 
dambini Dasi (1868), 3 B. L. R. O. C. 
85. This question was suggested, 
but not decided, in Bamundoss Moc- 
ker jea v. Tarinee, (Mussamut) (1858), 
7 M. I. A. 169, at p. 190, and in 
ShamavaJioo v. Dwarkadas Vasanji 
(1878), 12 Bom 202, at p. 215. 

9 Bamundoss Mookerjea v. Tarinee 
(Mussamut) (1858), 7 M. L A. 169, 
at p. 190 ; Raman Ammal v. Sulban 
Annavi (1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 399; 
Uma Sunduri Ddbee v. Sourobinee 
Dabee (1881), 7 Calc. 288 ; 9 0. L. 
R. 83 ; Lakshmana Rau v. Lakshmi 
Ammal (1881), 4 Mad. 160 ; Prasan- 
namayi Dasi v. Kadambini Dasi 
(1868), 3 B, L. R. 0. 0. 85 ; Deeno 
Moyee, Dossee (Sreemutty) v. Doorga 
PersJiad Mitter (1865), 3 W. R. M. 
A. 6, at p. 7; Demo Moyee Dossee 
(Sreemutty) v. Tarachurn Koondoo 
ChowdTiry (1865), Bourke, A. 0. C. 
48 ; 3 W. R. M. A. 7, note ; Dino 
Moyee OfiowdJirain v. Rehling (1865), 
2 W. R. M. A. 25. 

10 Deeno Moyee Dossee (Sreemutty) 
v. (Farachund Koondoo CJtowdhry 
(1865), Bourke, A. O. C. 48 ; 3 W. 
R. M, A. 7, note. 



144 WHO HAY cam [CHAP. HI. 

In a case whore the husband has jxwerto deal with property by will 
there ia nothing apparently to prevent him from enforcing the exercise 
of a ]K>wer of adoption by a gift over of his property to some one other than 
the v, idow, in the event of the power not being exercised within a specified 
tune. 

Until she actually adopts, a widow can exercise no rights on behalf of 
the boy, the adoption of whom she is contemplating. 1 

Tt is unsettled whothor a covenant by a widow not to adopt 

to adopt. 



Such question might depend upon the nature of the power (if any). 3 
It ii> submitted that she could not be restrained from exercising a power, 
which is given to her, not for her own benefit, but for that of her husband. 



CAPACITY TO GIVE IN ADOPTION. 

Father. The natural father * can give in adoption where there is no 

diwont by the mother, and, even in case of such dissent, the 
weight of authority is in favour of the father's power to give his 
Bon in adoption, 

In Xarayawtsami v, Kuppusami (1887), 11 Mad. 43, at p. 47, it is said, 
* v Where there is a competition between the father and mother, the former 
lias a predominant interest or a potential voice." 

Mr. Mayne says, 5 4 * It is quite settled that the father alone has absolute 
authority to dispose of his son in adoption, even without the consent of 
his wife, though her consent is generally sought and obtained." He cites 
two cases. In one (Alank Manjari v. Fakir Chwid SarJcar (1834), 5 Ben. 
HeL E. 356 (new edition), 418), the question was as to the adoptive mother's 
consent, which is a different question from the present one. In the other 
(Chitto Raghunatfi Kajadiksh v, Jamki (1874), 11 Bom. H, C. 199), the 
question did not arise, but (at p. 202) the Court says, " In the eye of Hindu 

1 Sulttdra Choicdmyii (Mu^amaut] appears, by the weight of authority, 

v. Gulnknath Chowdhnj (1S43), 7 Ben. to be independent of the wife, the 

Sol. K, 143 (new edition, 1G(>). father of the mother.'* See " Datta- 

a In Asttur Purdtotam v. Ratanbai ka Mimansa," s. 4, paras. 10, 11, 

(1888), 13 Bom. 50, the Court re- 13-15, 17 (see also s. 1, paras, 15, 

fused to issue an ad interim injune- 16) ; s. 5, para. 14, and note, and 

tion restraining the widow from s. 6, paras. 50, 51; " Mitakshara," 

adopting. chap. i. s. II, para. 9; Colebrooke's 

3 See Maync's << Hindu Law," 8th " Digest," vol. ia pp. 244, 254, 257, 
ed., p. 151. 261 ; " Viramitrodaya," chap. ii. 

4 An adoptive father cannot give part ii. s. 8 (G. C. Sarkar's transla- 
in adoption. See jpotf, p. 148. tion), p. 115 ; " Dattaka Chandrika," 

8 "Hindu Law," 8th cd., p. 168. s. 1, paras. 31, 32. Contrd, see 

Strange ( Hindu Law," vol. i. p. 81) Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 11, para. 9, 

says, u As in adopting, so in giving in note ; Sutherland's " Synopsis," note 

adoption, though the concurrence of 9 (p 224) ; " Vyavahara Mayukha " 

parents is deslmbk, the husband (Mandlik'a edition), p. 50. 



CHAP. HI.] 



WHO MAY GIVE. 



135 



law, when a man gives his son in adoption, he would seem to exercise a 
power, more like the power of an absolute proprietor than of a guardian." 

Sastri G. C. Sarkar 1 contends that the abolition of slavery has impliedly 
destroyed a Hindu father's absolute dominion over his son, and concludes, 
" The proper view to take, therefore, seems to be that the father alone is 
incompetent to give when the mother is opposed to it, and that such gift 
is not void, but voidable only at the instance of the mother." 

Nanda Pandita 2 contends that unless the mother consents, the adoption 
does not affect the boy's relationship to his maternal relations. It is 
scarcely likely that this view would now be taken by the Courts. 

A mother can, during the father's lifetime, with his consent, Mother, 
give her son in adoption. 3 

On the death of the father, or on his being permanently 
absent from home, or on his entering a religious order, or losing 
his reason, or otherwise becoming incapable of giving his consent, 
a mother can give her son in adoption, 4 provided that the 
father has neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited her from 
so doing. 3 

The power to give in adoption is not limited to a season of distress, nor Circumstances 

of parent 
,. . , , . , immaterial. 



1 " Law of Adoption," pp. 274, 
275. 

a " Dattaka Mimansa," vi. 50, 51. 

8 LallubJiai BapuWiai v. Mankuvar- 
bhai (187C), 2"Bom. 388, at pp 404, 
405; Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," 
p. 276, 

4 Jog&sh CJiandra Banerjee v. 
Nrityalcah Debi (1903), 30 Gale 965. 
S. C. sub nom. Jogesh Chunder Ban- 
dopadhya v. Jonabali Bepait, 7 C. W. 
N. 871 ; Eangubai v. BJiagirthibai 
(1877), 2 Bom. 377, at p. 380 ; Mhal- 
salai v. Vithoba Khandappa Gulve 
(1802), 7 Bom. H. 0. App. xxvi. ; 
Hurra Soondree Dassee v. Chunder- 
money Dassee, Sov. 938 ; ArnacheUum 
Pillay v. lyasawmy Pittay (1817), 
1 Mad. Sel. Doc. 154 ; 1 Norton, L. 
C. 90. (In that case the knsmen 
assented, but such assent was not 
considered necessary in Narayanasami 
v. Kuppusami (1887), 11 Mad. 43, at 
p. 47, or in GuruUngaswami v. Rama- 
lakshmamma (1894), 18 Mad. 53, at 
p. 58.) " Mitakshara," chap. L s. 11, 
para. 9. See "Manu," chap. ix. para. 
168. As to Jains, see Asliarfi Kunwar 
v. Jfep Ofand (1908), 30 A1L.197 , S. C. 



on appeal Rup CJiand (Lala) v. Jambw 
Parshad (1910), 37 I. A. 93 ; 32 All. 
247 ; 14 C. W. N. 545 ; 12 Bom. L. R. 
402. 

5 Rangubai v. Bhagirfhibai (1877), 
2 Bom. 377 ; Narayanasami v. Kuppu- 
sami (1886), 11 Mad. 43, at pp. 47, 
48. See Tanni Charan Chowdhry v. 
Saroda Sundari Dasi (1869), 3 B. *L. 
R. A. C. 145, at p. 160 ; 11 W. R. C. 
R. 468, at p. 476 ; Gurulingaswami 
(Sn Balusu) v. RamalaksTimamma (Sri 
Balusu) 1899), 26 I. A. 113, at p. 128 ; 
22 Mad. 398, at p. 408 ; 3 a W. N. 
427, at pp. 436, 437 ; 1 Bom. L. R. 
226. See S. C. in Court below, Guru- 
lingaswami v. Ramalalcshmamma, 
(1894), 18 Mad. 53, at pp. 58, 59. Sir 
G. D. Banerjee (" Law of Marriage," 
3rd ed., pp. 177, 178) says that except 
in Southern India a mother can only 
give in adop$on with the consent of 
her husband, and relies on * e Manu," 
chap. ix. para. 168, "Dattaka Mi- 
mansa," s. 1, para. 15, and " Dattaka 
Chandnka," s. 1, para. 31. See, how- 
ever, " Dattaka Chandrika/' a. 1, 
para, 32. 



13fl simon. [ OECA3? * m ' 

is it, affected by the pouuflMon of means by the giver, 1 Her right is said to 
arise from th/maternal relat ion, and not by delegation from her husband. 

NO on* eke Under no circumstances can any one other than the father 
can give. ^ mothor give a boy in adoption. 3 

A stepmother, 4 a brother, 5 and a paternal grandfather, 6 have no power 
to give in adoption. 

Delegation of The power to give a son in adoption cannot be delegated to 

on of ai1 ^ l )0rson ; 7 but a father or motlier ma ^ ailthorize another 
u-m^ poixon to perform the physical act of giving a son in adoption 

to a named person. 8 

of *m i y It irf not settled whether a minor father or mother can give 
" his or her son in adoption. 

The Hindu law books do not expressly prohibit a minor from giving 
a son in adoption. 9 This is probably for the reason that the event would 
Le unlikely to occur. The question apparently stands upon the same 
footing as "the capacity to take in adoption, 10 and, at any rate, a father 
who has not attained the age of discretion " would apparently be incom- 
petent to give his son in adoption. As a Hindu minor 12 cannot make a 
will, and apparently cannot appoint a testamentary guardian, 13 it would 
seem unlikely that he would have power to dispose of a child, in respect of 
whose custody after his death he could make no provision. 

* The precepts prohibiting a gift L. C. i. 66 (differing from Ve&raper- 
except in time of distress are not maU Pilfay v. Narrain Pillay (1801), 
rules of law. See " Mami," chap. ix. 1 Mad. N. C. 78, at p. 109) ; " Vya- 
para. 168 ; "Dattafca Mimansa," s. 4, vastha Darpana," 825. 

paras. 19, 20 ; " Mitakshara," chap. Collector of Surat v. DUrsi'ngji 

i. s. 11, para. 10. TctgMxiji (1873), 10 Bom. H, C. 235. 

2 Putlabai v. Mrihadu (190S), 33 See Ktnchmoa v. Ningupa (1867), 10 
Bora 107; 10 Bom. L. R. 1134; Bom. H. C. 265, note. 
"Mitakshara," chap, i. s. 11, paras. 7 Bliagvandcts Tejmal v. Eajmal 
9, 10 ; " Maim," chap, ix., para. 168 ; (1873), 10 Bom. H. C. 241 ; Bashetti- 
" Yajnavalkya," n. 130 ; Mandlik's appa v. Shivhngappa (1873), 10 Bom. 
CI Hindu Law," p. 148. H. C. 268. 

3 Ibid. See " Vasistha,"" xv. ss. 2, 8 Shamsing v. Santabai (1901), 25 
5 ; Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. in. Bom. 551 ; 3 Bom. L. B. 89 ; Jamna- 
p. 242 ; " Mann," chap. ix. para. 168; bai v. Kaychand Ndhalchand (1883), 
Lakskrwppa v. Ramava (1875), 12 7 Bom. 225; Vtjiarangam v. Lakshu- 
Bom,H.G.362,atp.376; Va&ftilingam man (1871), 8 Bom. H. C. 0. C. 
Mudali v. Marugaian (1912), 37 Mad 244, at p. 257. 

529. 9 G. C. Sarkar's "Law of Adop- 

* Papamnw v. T". Appa Rait tion," p. 371. 

(1893), 16 Mad. 384. * Ante, pp. 106, 107. 

6 Tara Munee Dibia (Musmmmaut) ll Ante, p. 107. 

v. Bem&myun Mai (1824), 3 Ben. ia That is, a minor within the 

Sel. R. 387 (2nd edition, 516) ; Moo* meaning of the Indian Majority Act 

fhoosawmy NMu v. Ifldchmydawm* (IX. of 1875). 

mah, Mad. Doc. 1852, p. 96 ; Norton 1S Post, p. 213. 



CHAP. III.] CONVERSION. 137 

There seems no reason why an adult father could not give to his minor 
widow power to dispose of his son in adoption. 

It has been held that a Hindu father, at any rate if ho is Abandonment 
not a Brahmin, does not lose his capacity to give his son in 
adoption by reason of his conversion to Mahomedauijmi. 1 

In the case referred to the child had remained a Hindu. If the child 
also had become a Mahomedan, the Hindu law of adoption would have been 
inapplicable. In spite of the above decision, there is a question whether 
a father, who has by his conversion adopted a system of law which docs 
not recogniae the adoption of sons, can retain a portion of the system 
which he has repudiated. 2 Act XXI. of 1850 merely destroys the effect 
of any law or usage which inflicts a forfeiture of rights or property upon 
persons changing their religion. In this case the forfeiture, if it can bo so 
described, does not arise from any law or usage. There is, it is submitted, 
an abandonment of a right, by virtue of the voluntary assumption of other 
rights which are inconsistent with such right. The above decision is 
based upon authorities which deal with the right of custody, which is a 
right known both to the system abandoned and the system adopted. 

A father who has become a. Brahiuo does not lost k his right 
to give his son in adoption. 3 

Where the father has given permission, a mother who has Remarriage of 
remarried can give her son in adoption, whether or not she W1 ow ' 
belongs to a caste in which remarriage is customary. 4 

When the father has not given such permission it is unsettled whether 
she can give in adoption. In one case 5 it was said that she has such power 
and in another case c the power was denied. If a woman could be said 
to be acting as agent for her husband, 7 she would undoubtedly lose her 
power by her remarriage ; but the mother's right is said to arise from her 
maternal relation, and not from any idea of agency, 8 The texts of Hindu 
law did not contemplate re-marriage. The Hindu Widows' Bcmarriago 
Act,* in some caaes deprived her of her rights of guardianship, but it 
does not deprive a widow of any rights except in the matters provided in 
the Act. As a mother would not lose her right by loss of casto, or, it is 
submitted, necessarily by a change of religion, 10 it is submitted that she 
does not lone her right by remarriage. 



v. Santabai (1901), 25 Pancha/ppa v. tiunyanbamwa (1899), 

Bom. 561 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 89. 24 Bom. 89 ; 1 Bom, L. It. 543. 

* Sec Jowala Bufoh v. Dfarum & Putlalai v. Mahadu (1908), 33 
Singh (1806), 10 M I. A. 511, at p. Bom. 107; 10 Born. L. B. 1134. 
537 ; Abraham v. Abraham (1803), 9 6 PancJwtpyta v, Sanyaribasawft 
M, I. A. 199, at p. 243 ; 1 W. R. P, (1899), 24 Bom. 89 ; 1 Bom. L. K. 545. 
0. J,atj>. 5. 7 Sco "Dattaka Chaadrika," s. 1, 

* Kwwm Xuman Xtoy v. tiatya* para. 3JL 
ranjan Daa (1903), 30 Calc. 199 ; 8 Ante, j>, 130. 

7 0, W* N. 784, u Act XV. of 1850, s. 3, yobt, pp. 

* PuMai V, Maltadu (1908), 33 210, 217. 
Bom, 107; 10 Bom, L, K, 1134; * Bee above. 



138 



WHO MAY BE TAKEN. 



[OHAF. III. 



Identity of 
class* 



No preferen- 
tial right. 



Relationship 
of ailopti\ e 
lather to 
natural 
mother. 



WlIO MAY BE TAKEN IN ADOPTION. 

The boy must belong to the same primary caste as that of 
life adoptive father. 1 

For instance, a Brahmin cannot adopt a Kshatriya or a Sudra. 
Tho rrason for this rule is that the adoptive father could not have 
married the natural mother, \\hen a virgin, as she belonged to a different 



There scorns to be nothing to prevent an adoption of a boy belonging 
to a different subdivision of the Sudra class, 3 as the weight of authority 
is in favour of the legality of a marriage between persons belonging to 
different subdivisions of that class. 4 

No boy has a preferential or any right to be adopted, and 
there is nothing to prevent the adoption of a stranger, even 
though there be a near relation qualified for adoption. 

The texts which prescribe the preferential adoption of a sapinda have 
not the force of law. 5 

It has been laid clown that among the three twice-born 
classes, no one whose mother, when she was a virgin, 6 the 
adoptive father (or the husband of a widow taking a boy in 
adoption), was by reason of propinquity barred from legally 
marrying, can be adopted, 7 but it is submitted that the 



1 " Manu," chap. ix. para. 168 ; 
" Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 11, para. 
9 ; " Vyavahara Mayukha," chap. 
v. s, 5, para. 4 ; " Dattaka Mi- 
mansa," s. 2, paras. 22, 23-25; 
" Dattaka Chandrika," s. 1, paras. 
12-16. See G. C. Sarkar's " Law of 
Adoption," pp. 165, 357, 358. 

3 See below and post, p 139. 

a Decision of the Calcutta High 
Court in Regular Appeals, 274, and 
322 of 1886, referred to in G. C. 
Sarkar's " Law of Adoption,'* p. 165 ; 
sec also pp. 357, 358, of the same 
work. See, however, Sutherland's 
" Synopsis," head. 2, para. 1 ; *' Dat- 
taka Mimansa," s. 2, paras. 35, 74- 
78, s. 3, paras. 1-3. It has been held 
that a Tilari (an inferior Lingayat) 
may adopt a boy who is a Kulwadi : 
Julwram v, Babafi (1899), Bom. 
3L B. 144. 

* Ante, p, 38. 

5 Uma Deyi (Srimafy v. Gokoola 



nund Das Mahapatra (1878), 5 I. A. 
40 ; 3 Calc. 587 ; 2 C. L. R. 5i. ' 
S. C, in Court below, Oocoolanund 
Das v. Wooma Daee (1875), 15 B. L. 
R. 405 ; 23 W. B. C. K. 340 ; Dhar- 
ma Dagu v. Ramlcrishna Chimnaji 
(1885), 10 Bom. 80 ; Babaji Jtvaji v. 
Bltagirtlibai (1869), 6 Bom. H. C. A. 
C. 70. 

6 See Sriramulu v. Ramayyo, (1881), 
3 Mad. 15. 

7 MimJcsi v. Bamanada (1887), 
11 Mad. 49 (m this case the pro- 
hibition was laid down as a general 
rule of Hindu law without reference 
to any distinction between the twice- 
born classes and Sudras, but the 
judgment is based upon considerations 
inapplicable to Sudras); Gopal Nar* 
har Safray v. Hanmant Gtanesh Sa- 
fray (1879), 3 Bom. 273 ; BTiagirfhibai 
v. Radhdbai (1879), 3 Bom. 298; 
Jtvani Bliai v. Jwu Bha$ (1865), 2 
Mad. H. C. 462, See also judgment 



OIIAP. III.] RELATIONSHIP. 139 

prohibition should be coniiaecl to the sister's son, daughter's 
son, and mother's sister's son. 1 

This rule in its present form was" first enunciated by Mr. Sutherland 
in his " Synopsis." a He deduced this rule from a rule which had reference 
to the obsolete practice of niyoga, which, when used in this sense, means 
the appointment of a kinsman to raise up issue by the wife of a childless 
husband, or of one deceased without leaving children. 3 

A text of Saunaka * requires the boy adopted to bear " the reflection 
of a son." Nanda Pundita 5 in construing this text, held that the resem- 
blance must consist in " the capability to have sprung from (the adopter) 
himself, through an appointment (to raise up issue on another's wife), and 
so forth, 6 as (in the case) of the son, of a brother, a near or distant kinsman, 
and so forth." 

As the practice of niyoga is now obsolete, 7 the rules by which it was 
regulated in respect of the person selected for appointment are not, as 
such, now used for the purpose of testing the capability of tho person to 
be adopted, but in their place the rules as to the prohibited degrees in 
the case of marriage have been substituted. 

The two sets of rules have been held not to conflict, 8 but they do not 
appear to completely coincide. 9 " Prohibited connection in the ease of 
marriage has reference to the relationship in which the couple between 
whom marriage is proposed stand, irrespective of marriage, and when the 
girl selected for marriage is a maiden. But prohibited connection in the 
case of niyoga has reference to the relationship between a married woman 
and the person who is appointed to beget a child upon her. . . . The 
rules of prohibited connection had a common object in both cases, viz, 
the prevention of incest. 



of Banerjee J., in BJiagwan Singh v. p. 117. 

Bhaywan Singh (1895), 17 All. 294 ; 3 Wilson's " Glossary," p. 380. 

Haran Chund&r Bane^ v. Hurro 4 "A rishi of unquestioned 

Mohun Chuckerbutty (1880), 6 Calc. authority." 

41, at p. 47 ; 6 C. L. E. 393, at p. 5 " Dattaka Mimansa," s. 5, para. 

398 ; Vyas Chimanlal v. Vyas Ram- 1C, 

Chandra (1899), 24 "Bom. 473 ; 2 Bom. 6 " The phrase ' so forth ' is ox- 

L. B. 163. plained to refer to a legal marriage 

1 See Eamchandra v. Oopal (1908), having been possible between the 
32 Bom. 619 ; 10 Bom. L. R. 948, adopter and the mother of the boy 
post, p. 140. fixed for adoption." SnramMlu v. 

2 Stokes' " Hindu Law Books," p. Ramayya (1881), 3 Mad. 15, at p. 16. 
6C4. As to the rules of exclusion 7 See ante, p. 100. 

by reason of propinquity in the case 8 M^n<,ik$^li v. Ramanada (1887), 

of marriage, see ante, pp. 40-44. 11 Mad. 49, at p. 54. See also 

Where the adopting father has himself Bhagwan Singh v. Btwgwan Singh 

: been removed from his natural family (1895), 17 All. 294, at p. 322. (In 

by adoption this rule would debar him the appeal in this case (1899), 26 L 

from adopting the son of a woman A. 153; 21 All. 412; 3 C. W. N. 

,whom< he could not have married 454, 1 Bom. L. B. 311, this view was 

before being so removed, and also not disturbed.) 

",tbe son of one whom he could not 9 See Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," 

, fcave fciarried after having been so Snded., p. 1G9. 
removed See, Mad. Dec, of 1858, 



MO RELATIONSHIP. [CHAP. III. 

In the ease of marriage, there are three prohibitions, 1 viz. 

(i.) Tho couple between whom marriage is proposed should not be 
sapindas ; 

(ii.) They should not be mgotras ; and 

(iu ) There should be no VimWut Sanbatifttia or contrary relationship, 
i hat is, such relationship as would render sexual connection between them 
incestuous. Thus contrary relationship is defined aa consisting in the 
couple being so related to eacli other that by analogy the one is the father 
or the mother of the other, as, for instance, the daughter of the wife's 
Qkitcr and the sister of the paternal uncle's wife," 2 

According to the niyugu rule, " The relations prohibited for adoption 
b> a man are : the paternal uncle, the maternal uncle, the brother, the 
four iirst cousins on paternal and maternal side, the brother-in-law, the 
sifter's son, and the daughter's son." 3 Of these the father's brother's 
son, and the mother's brother's son, 4 would not be excluded by the marriage 
rules. 

Whatever may have been the origin of the rule prohibiting the adoption 
of a boy, whose mother the adoptive father could not have married, it 
has been held in Madras that the Courts cannot now go behind it and test 
the validity of an adoption by the rules which governed the obsolete 
system of nlyogaJ* 

It remains to be seen whether the Judicial Committee will, when it 
becomes necessary to lay down a general rule on this subject, accept 
the rule of prohibited degrees in marriage laid down in India, or will 
accept the niyoga rule, enunciated in the "Dattaka Miniansa," or will 
confine the prohibitions to the three cases which have hitherto been 
considered by the Committee, 6 viz. those of the sister's son, daughter's 
son, and mother's sister's son. These are the only cases specified, by the 
sages Saunaka and Sakala, 7 from whose texts Nanda Pandita, in the 
'* Dattaka Mimansa," based the niyoga test of exclusion. 

The Bombay High Court confines the prohibitions to sister's son, 
daughter's son, and mother's sister's son. 8 This view is, it is submitted, 
the preferable one. 

The high authority of the " Dattaka Mimansa " 9 might possibly give 



1 Ante, pp. 30-41. (1899), 26 I A. 153; 21 All. 412,* 

2 Mmnl-sJii v. JKcnnanada (1887), 3 C. W. JST. 454; 1 Bom. L. R 311. 
11 Mad. 49, at p. 53.* Harnage 7 As to the construction of Sa- 
between a Hindu and the daughter kala's text, see Walbai v. Heerlai 
of his wife's sister was held to be (1909), 34 Bom. 491, at p. 495; 11 
valid in Ragavendta Ran v. Jayaram Bom. L. R. 1172. 

Jtau (1897), 20 Mad. 283. Ramcliandra v. Gopal (1908), 32 

3 G. C Sarkar's " Law of Adop- Bom. 019 ; 10 Bom. L. R. 948 ; 
tion," p. 322, and see preceding pages. Jamnava v. Lazman Bhimrao (1912), 

4 See Virayya v. Hanumanta 36 Bom. 533 ; 14 Bom. L. R. 543 ; 
(1890), 14 Mad. 459, at p. 461. The Gajanan Balkrishna v. KasUwth 
mother's brother's son can be adop- tfarayaw (1915), 30 Born. 410; 17 Bom. 
ted in the Bombay Presidency; Yam- L R. 372. 

mm, v. Laaman Shimrao Kidkarni * JShagwan Singh v. JShagwan Singh 

(1912), 36 Bom. 533; 14 Bom. L.R. 543. (1899), 26 L A. 153, at p. 161; 21 

6 See Virayya v. Hanumanta All. 412, at p. 419 ; 3 C. W. N. 454, 

(1890), 14 Mad. 459, at p. 461. at p. 457 ; 1 Bom. L. R. 311 ; Col- 

9 Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan Si7iffh lector of Madura v. Moottoo Jtamalinga 



CEA. III.] 



EE&ATIONSHIP. 



141 



a preference to the niyoga test of exclusion ; but with regard to the analogy 
between the Dattaka form of adoption and this obsolete practice the 
Judicial Committee has said, 1 "as a ground for judicial decision these 
speculations are inadmissible, though as explanatory arguments to account 
for an actual practice they may be deserving of attention " 

The burden of proving a special custom to the contrary amongst any Special 
members of these three classes, prevalent, either in their caste, or in a par- custom ' 
ticular locality, lies upon him who avers the existence of that custom. 2 

In the following cases, which fall within the above-mentioned instances of 

i T j.- i i i 11 i i 1-1 application of 

rule, adoptions have been held to be invalid. rule. 

(a) Daughter's son. 3 

Brahmins in the Tanjore, Trichinopoly, and Tinnevelly districts, by 
custom, adopt daughter's sons. 4 There seems to be a similar custom 
among the Nambudri Brahmins of Malabar, 5 and it has been held 6 thai 
in the Southern Mahratta country the prohibition of the adoption of a 
daughter's son is not universally in force. In the Punjab there is fre- 
quently such a custom. 7 

(I) Sister's son. 8 



Sathupathy (1868), 12 M. I. A. 397, 
at pp. 435, 437; 1 B. L. B. P. C. 
1, at pp. 11, 13 ; 10 W. B. P. C. 17, 
at pp. 21, 22 ; W aman Saghupatt Bova 
v. Krishnaji Kashiraj Bova (1889), 
14 Bom. 249, at p. 259 ; Uma Bunker 
Moitro v. Kali Komul Mozumdar 
(1880), 6 Calc. 256, at p. 265; 7 
C. L. B. 145, at p. 154; Rajendro 
Narain LaJtoree v. Saroda Soonduree 
Dabce (1871), 15 W. B. C. B. 548. 

1 Collector of Madura v. Moottoo 
Samalinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 M. 
I. A. 396, at p. 441 ; 1 B. L. B. P. G. 
7, at p. 16 ; 10 W. B. P. C. 17, at 
p. 23 ; fiaghunadha (Sn) v. Brozo- 
kiskoro (Sri) (1876), 3 I. A. 154, at 
p. 190 ; 1 Mad. 69, at p. 80 ; 25 W. 
B. C. B. 291, at pp. 301, 302. 

2 Gopal Narhar Safray v. Hanmant 
Ganesh Safray (1879), 3 Bom. 273, 
at pp. 296, 297. See Vayidinada v. 
Appu (1885), 9 Mad. 44, at pp. 45, 
46; Minakshi v. Mamanada (1887), 
11 Mad. 49, at p. -55; Lali v. Mur- 
hdhar (1901), 24 All. 195, at p. 205. 

3 Bhagisan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh 
(1899), 26 I. A. 153, at p. 160 ; 21 
AIL 412, at p 418 ; 3 C. W. N. 454, 
at p. 456; 1 Bom. L. B. 311 ; Oopal 

, $tisr&wr Safray v. Hawmant Oanesh 
Safrtiy (1879), 3 Bom, 273; Bha- 
* (1879), 3 Bom. 



298 ; Jivani Bhai v. Jivu Bhai (1865), 
2 Mad. H. C. 462, at pp. 467, 468. 

4 Vaytdinada v. Appu (1885), 9 
Mad. 44. 

5 See Vishnu Nambudri (Branjoli 
Illath) v. Knshnan Nambudri (JEranjoh 
IllatJi] (1883), 7 Mad. 3. 

6 Kam (Bai) v. CJiunilal (1897), 22 
Born. 973, at p. 976. 

7 See Hup Na^n v. Gopal Devi 
(1909), 36 L A. 103 ; 36 Calc. 780 ; 
13 C. W. N. 920 ; 10 Boin. L. B, 833 

8 Bhagwan Singh v. BJiagwan Singh 
(1899), 26 L A. 153, at p. 160 ; 21 
All. 412, at p. 418 ; 3 C. W. N. 454, 
at p. 456 ; 1 Bom L. B. 311 ; Lah 
(Mussammat) v. Mwtt JDhar (1906), 
33 L A. 97 ; 28 All. 488 ; 10 C. W. N 
730 ; Narain Daa (Lola) v. JRamanuj 
Dayal (Lola) (1897), 25 I. A. 46, at 
p. 52; 20 All. 209, at p. 217; 2 
C. W. N. 193, at p, 195; Sundar 
(Mussawmat) v. Parbati (Mussammat) 
(1889), 16 I. A. 186, at p. 193 ; 12 
All. 51, at p. 56. S. C. in. Court 
below, Parbati v. Sundar (1885), 8 All 
1 ; Rajcoomar LaU v. Bts^essur Dyal 
(1884), 10 dale. 688, at p. 693; 
Narasammd&v. Balaramacharlu (1863), 
1 Mad, H. C. 420; Gopalayyan v. 
Raghupatiayyan (1873), 7 Mad. H. C. 
250 ; Kora ShunJco Takovr (Doe dem) 
v. Munnee (Bebee) (1815), East's 



142 



BEfcATIONSHIP. 



[CHAP. in. 



By custom Brahmins in the Tanjoro, Trichinopoly and Tinnevelly 
districts, 1 the Bohra Brahmins of the northern districts of the North- 
Wcsteni Provinces, 2 and the Nainbudri Brahmins of Malabar, 3 and Saras- 
wat Brahmins of Kanara * adopt sister's sons. It has also been held that 
in the Southern Mahratta country tho prohibition of the adoption of sister's 
sons is not universally in force. 5 

It has been held that a sister's daughter's son would be 
inadmissible for adoption. 

8uch adoption is permissible in the Tclegu and Tamil country where 
a marriage between a maternal uncle and his niece is allowed. 7 

(tf) Mother's sister's son. 8 

(d) Tho son of the daughter of a sagotra. 

The father's sister's son can be adopted in the Bombay Presidency. 10 
The above rule would exclude him from adoption. 



notes, case 20; Mori. Dig. vol. i. 
p. 18; ShiUaU v. Blshwnbcr, S. D. 
A. X. W. P. I860, p. 25. In Rama- 
linga Pdlai v. Sadasiva Pillai {1864), 
M. I. A. 510 ; 1 W. B. P. 0. 25, 
the adoption of a sister's son was 
upheld. The parties were said in the 
report to be Vaisyas. The question as 
to the validity of the adoption was 
raised, but the case was determined 
on the ground that the title of the 
respondent was admitted by the ap- 
pellant's father. In Jivani Bhai v. 
Jim Bhai (1865), 2 Mad. H C. 462, 
at p. 467, it was asserted that the 
parties to the case of Ramdlinga Pil- 
lai were clearly Sudras. See also 
Copal Narhav Safray v. Hanmnnt 
Uanctih Safiay (1879), 3 Bom. 273, 
at pp, 282, 283- In Ganpatrav Yi- 
retJtvttr v. Vitkoba Khandappa (1867), 
4 Bom. H C. A. C 130, the adoption 
of a sister's son was upheld, but the 
parties were evidently Sudras (see 
Gopal NarJiar Safray v. Hanmant 
Ganesh Safray (1879), 3 Bom. 273, 
at p. 282). In Bhagwan Singh v. 
Bhagwan Singh (1895), 17 All. 294, 
at p. 302, it is said that the parties in 
Gangatrav's case were Vaisyas, but 
tb&t the Court erred in supposing 
taafc tb& parties in Ramalinga Pillais 
case w* ptte than Sudras 

1 V&$$wfa v, A$pu, (1885), 9 
Mini 44, 



8 Chain Siikli Mam v. Parbati 
(1891), 14 All. 53. In an Agra case 
(Lah v. MwMhar (1901), 24 All. 
195, at pp. 197, 205), an unsuccessful 
attempt was made to prove that a 
Bohra Brahmin could adopt his sister's 
son. 

3 risJinu Nanibudn (Eranjoli lllath} 
v Knshnan Nambudri (Eranjoli lllath) 
O883), 7 Mad. 3. 

4 Manjunatlt v. Kaicribai, (1902), 
4 Bom. L. R. 140. 

5 Nam (Bai) v. CJiunilal (1897), 22 
Bom. 973, at p. 976. 

6 Venkata v. SuWiadra (1884), 7 
Mad. 548, at p. 549 As to a half- 
sister's daughter's son, see Karunabdi 
Ganesa Ratnamaiyar v. Gopala JRatna- 
maiyar (1889), 7 I. A 173, at p. 177 ; 
2 Mad 270, at p 279. 

7 Yenlata v- SiibJiadra (1884), 7 
Mad. 548, at p. 549 

8 Bhagwan Smgli v. BJiagwan Singli 
(1899), 26 I. A. 153 ; 21 All 412 ; 
30 W. N. 454 ; Walbai v. Heerbai 
(1909), 34 Bom. 491 ; 11 Bom. L. B. 
1172. 

9 Minafahi v. Ramanada (1887), 
II Mad. 49. Soo, however, Maga- 
vendra Ran, v. Jayaram Itau (1897), 
20 Mad. 283, at p 289, and ante, p. 39. 

10 Ramkriskna Gopal Joshi v. 
wji Vyankatesh (1913), J5 
li. E 8S5. 



CHAP. III.] BELATIONSHIP. 143 

It seems that the adoptions of the following arc prohibited, Prohibition 
not by the marriage rule, which is inapplicable, but by express j^ U nSo. 
authority, viz. : 

(i.) Brother. 1 

In the Deccan the adoption of a younger brother is permitted. 3 

It has been held in Bombay that a half-brother can be adopted. 3 A 

contrary view has been taken in Madras. 1 It is submitted that the former 

view is preferable. 

(ii.) Paternal and maternal uncles. 5 

Having regard to the prohibition as to the age 6 of the adopted son, this 
case is unlikely to occur except, perhaps, in Western India. 7 

It has been held that the adoptions of the following persons instances 
are permissible, except in the case where the natural mother does not 
of the boy happens to be a person whom, as a virgin, the adoptive apply " 
father could not lawfully have married. 

(a) Brother's son's son. 8 

(6) Paternal uncle's son. 9 

(c) Paternal uncle's son's son's son, 10 

There can equally be no objection to the adoption of a paternal uncle's 
son's son. 11 



1 Sriramulu v. Ramayya (1881), 3 8 Haran, Ckundcr Banerji v. Hurro 
Mad. 15, at p. 16. See JKunjeet Sing Mohun Chuckerbutty (1880), 6 Calc. 
(Baboo) v. Obhye Narain Singh (1817), 41, at p. 48 ; 6 C. L. R. 393, at p. 
2 Ben. Sel R. 245 (2nd edition, 315) ; 400 ; Mown Moee DebcaJi v. Bejoy 
" Dattaka Mimansa," s. 5, para. 17. KisUo Gostamee (1863), W. R. Sp. 
The myoga rule (ante, p. 140) ex- No. 121. 

eluded brothers and step-brothers. 8 Virayya v Hanumanta (1891), 

2 See Huebut Rao Mankur v. Go- 14 Mad. 459 ; an unreporte& decision 
vind Rao BalwuntRao Mankur (1821), of the High Court of Bengal referred 
2 Borr. 75, at p. 85 ; Steele, 44. to in Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 

8 Gajanan BalJcrishna v. Kashinath p. 340. The paternal uncle's son is 

Narary&n (1915), 39 Bom. 410; 17 excluded by the niyoga rule of 

Bom. L. R. 372. exclusion (ante, p. 140). 

4 Snramulu v. Ramayya (1S81), 3 10 Haran ChuTider Banerji v. Hurro 

Mad 15, at p. 16. Mohun CJmckerbutty (1880), 6 Calc, 

fi Haran Chunder Banerji v. Hurro 41, at p. 47 ; 6 C. L. R. 393, at p. 

Mokun ChucJcerbutty (1880), 6 Calc. 399. 

41, at p. 47 ; 6 C. L R. 393, at n In Venkata v. Subhadra (1884), 

p. 398 ; " Dattaka Mimansa," s. 5, 7 Mad. 54$, the boy was the son of 

para. 17; Sarkar's "Law of Adop- the paternal unclo's son, but no 

txon," p- 327; Macnaghten's " Hindu objection was made to the adoption 

Law/' vol. i p. 67. on this ground. Such adoption is said 

8 Post, pp. 146, 147. s ven to be commendable. 

7 Port, p, 147, " <c Law of Adoption," p. 348. 



144 



RELATIONSHIP, 



[CHAP. in. 



Sudras. 



Relationship 
of adopting 
mother to 
natural father. 



(3) The son of the mother's father's brother's daughter's 
daughter. 1 

(e) The wife's brother.* 

ff) The wife's brother's son. 3 

(r/) The wife's sister's son. 4 

' The rule as to the relationship between the adopting father 
und the natural mother 5 has no application to Sudras. 6 

Eelationship between the adopting widow, or the wife of the 
adopting father, and the natural father of the boy is no impedi- 

mont to fln ac { opt i on .7 

Xanda Pandita held that a woman must not adopt her brother's son, 8 
but his view cannot now be accepted. 9 His view was accepted in two 



1 Tenkata v. Subhadra (1884), 7 
Mad. 548. In this case, Sastri G C. 
vSarkar points out ("Law of Adop- 
tion,'" p. 348) that having regard to 
the Mitakshara system of computa- 
tion of degrees, the Court was in 
error in considering that the adopting 
father could, under the general Hmdu 
law, have married the natural mother. 
Such marriage seems to have been 
permibsible by a- usage to vhich the 
parties were subject. 

2 Kristimengar v. Vanamalay lyen- 
gar, Mad. Dec. of 1856, p 213; 
Rutiganaigum v. Namesevoya Pillay, 
Mad. Bee. of 1857, p 94; Ruvee 
BJntdr v. Roopshunkar Shunkerjee 
(1823), 2 Borr, 656. 

3 Sriramulu y. Ramayya (1881), 3 
Mad. 15, at p. 17. See Nan* (Bai) v. 
Chumlal (1897), 22 Bom. 973, at p. 
979 ; Puttu Lai v. Parboil Kunwar 
(Musammat) (1915), 42 I. A. 155; 
37 AIL 359; 19 C. W. N. 841 ; 17 
Bom. L. R. 549. 

4 Gwnga (Baee) v. Sheoshunkur 
(Baee) (1832), Bom. gel. R. 73, at 
p. 76. 

6 Ante, pp 138, 139. 

6 See BJiagwan Singh, v. Bhagwan 
Singh (1899), 26 I. A. 153, at p. 160 ; 
21 All. 412, at p. 418 ; 3 C W. N. 
454, at p, 452. In Ramalinga, Pillai 
v. Sadastva PiUai (1864), 9 M. I. A. 
510; 1 W. R. P. C. 95, where the 
parties were Sudras, an adoption of a 
sister*s son was upheld. The marginal 
note of the report erroneously de- 



scribes the parties as Vaisyas (see 
Jwani JShai v. Jivu Elm (1865), 2 
Mad. H. C. R. 462, at p. 467), but it 
does not appear whether the Judicial 
Committee were aware that the 
parties were Sudras. Nurikoo Singh 
v. Purm Dhun Singh (1869), 12 W. 
R, C. R. 356 ; Jiwan Lai v. Kallu 
Mai (1905), 28 All. 170 ; Rajcoomar 
Latt v. Bissessur Dyal (J884), 10 
Calc. 688, at p. 693 ; Vayidinada v. 
Appu Q885), 9 Mad. 44, at p. 53 ; 
Chinna Nagayya v. Pedda Nagayya, 
(1875), 1 Mad. 62; Phundo v. 
Janginatfi (1893), 15 All 327 ; Lahsh- 
mappa v. Ramava (1875), 12 Bom. 
H. C. 364. 

7 Puttu Lai v. Parbati Kunwar 

(Musammat) (1915), 42 L A. 155; 37 

All. 359; 19C. W. N. 841,17Bom.L.R. 

549 ; Jai Singh Pal Singh v. Bijai 

PalSingh (1904), 27 AIL 417, differing 

on this question from Battas JKuar 

(Musst.) v. Lachman Singh (1875), 7 

N. W. P. 117 ; Sriramalu v. Ramayya 

(1881), 3 Mad. 15; Nani (Bai) v. 

Chumlal (1897), 22 Bom. 73 (a case 

from Gujarat). See Giriowa v. 

Bhtmaji Raghunath (1884), 9 Bom. 

58, which was a case from the Southern 

Mahratta country, where the pro- 

hibition of the adoption of a daughter's 

or sister's son is not universally in 

force. 

8 " Dattaka Mimansa," s. 2, paras. 
33, 34. See Sutherland's " Synopsis.** 
Stores' " Hindu Law Boots," p. 665. 

9 See cases m note 7 above. 



CHAP. III. 



ONLY SON. 



145 



cases. 1 It is supported by Dr. Jogendronath Bhattacharya, who carries 
the rule to its logical conclusion, and in the case of an adoption by 
a woman excludes from adoption the sons of men between whom and 
her there could be no legal niyoga or appointment to raise issue, 2 This 
is also the opinion of Sastri Olopal Chundra Sarkar. 3 

There is no ground for holding that the adoption of a relation NO restriction 

..,...,. ,. T , A as to genera- 

lS limited to a particular generation.* 

In the Punjab no adoption is rendered invalid by anjr 
relationship between the adopting and natural parents. 3 

Adoptions of daughter's sons, sister's sons, brother's sons, daughter's 
and sister's sons, by members of twice-born classes, have been upheld 
in the Punjab. 

Jains are not bound by any restrictions as to the relationship 
between adopter and adopted. 7 

Among Jains a daughter's son may be adopted. 8 

An adopted son cannot adopt from his adoptive family a Adoption from 
boy whom he could not have adopted if he had been a natural family. 
son of his adoptive father. 9 

An only son, or any one of several sons, can be Only son, 
adopted. 10 



1 Battas Knar (Mnsst.) v. Lachman 
Singh (1875), 7 N. W. P. 117 ; Dagitm* 
larw Dabec v. Tatamoney Dabee. 
(1818), Macnaghten's *' Considera- 
tions," 170; 1 Morloy'fl "Digest," 
3 9. Tn the latter case Nancla Pandita's 
rule waa extended to an uncle's son. 

2 " Commentaries on Hindu Law," 
2nd o<l., \m. 

" Law of Adoption," p. 332. 

4 IJaran Ohunder Banerji v* Uurro 
Mohun Chuck&butly (1880), 6 Calc. 
41, at p. 48 ; 6 0. L. R. 393, at p. 
899. It was there contended that a 
brother's son's son could not be 
adopted, although a brother's son 
could bo adopted. 

Weo cases referred to in Sarkar's 
"Law of Adoption," pp. 341, 342; 
Rattigan's " Digest," 7th cd., 56 ; 
Jlup Nwaito v. (hyal Devi (1909), 
30 L A. 103; 30 Calc. 780; 13 
C W. N. 920 ; 10 Bom L. R. 833. 

* $a,rkar' " Law of Adoption," pp. 

. 341, m 

H,L. 



7 Among the Jains adoption is a 
mere temporal arrangement, and has 
no spiritual object Asltarjl Kunwar 
v. Ru>p Chand (1908), 30 All 197; 
S. C on appeal Rup Chand (Lala) v. 
Jambu Paralutd, (1910), 37 I. A. 93 ; 
32 All. 247 ; 14 C W. N. 545 ; 12 
Bom L. B. 402 ; Bhagwndas Tejmal 
v. Jtajmal (1873), 10 Bom. H. 0. 241, 
at p. 262. 

8 JSheo Singh Eai v. DaJc7u> (Mussu- 
mat) (1878), 5 L A. 87 ; 1 All. 688 ; 

2 C. L. R. 193; Lakhmi Chand v. 
Oalto Bai (1886), 8 All. 319; Hassan 
AU v. Naga Mai (1876), 1 AH. 288. 

See Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 
p. 387. 

10 Gurulingaswami (tiii Batumi) v 
jRamalatohmamviria (SriBtiluau) ; RaHJin 
Mohun v. Hardai Bibi (1 899), 20 I. A. 
113; 22 Mad. 398; SSI All. 4<X) ; 

3 C. W. N. 427 ; 1 Bom. L. R. 220 ; 
Vyas Ohimanlal v. Vyatt Ramcliandra 
(1899), 24 Bom. 367 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 
163, 



146 



AGE. 



[CHAP. in. 



Ago of hoy, 
Bengal and 
Benares 
schools. 



A widow can give her only son in adoption, 1 

There was for a long time a conflict in the Indian Courts as to whether 
an only son could be given in adoption, 2 but in 1899 it was definitely 
settled that he could be so given. The power to adopt an elder or any 
one of several sons was settled much earlier. 3 

According to the Bengal * and Benares 5 schools, in the 
case of the three higher classes the adoption must take place 
before the boy is invested with the sacred thread ; 6 in the case 
of Sudms it must take place before marriage. 7 



1 Krishna v. Pammsliri (1901), 25 
Bom. 337, at p. 542 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 
73, where it is said, "Now that the 
recent decisions have established the 
fact that the gift of an only son is not 
blainable, the implied effect ceases to 
bo operative, and no restriction can 
be placed on the widows' power to 
make a valid gift of an only son." 1 * 
It was not necessary to decide in 
Balusu Giirulingaswanrfs case whether 
a widow would have power to give an 
only son in adoption. In Somasek- 
Jiant Raja v. SiilJiadramaji (1882), 6 
Bom. 24, following Laltslimappa v. 
JRamam (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 364, 
at p. 300, it was held that an authority 
by the husband to give in adoption, 
even as a dvyamitshyayana (yost, pp 
190-193), would not be implied in 
the case of the adoption of an only 
son. See also Debee Dial v. Hur HOT 
Singh (1828), 4 Ben. Sel. R. 320 (new 
edition, 407). The decision in Krishna 
v. Paramshri is supported by the 
views expressed by the Judicial Com- 
mittee in BaliLSu OuruHngaswami^ 
case, 26 I. A. at pp. 127, 128 ; 22 
Mad at pp. 407, 408; 21 All. at 
pp. 469, 470 ; 3 0. W. N. at pp. 436, 
437 ; 1 Boni. L. R. 226. 

2 For a discussion of the earlier 
cases on this subject, see Mayne's 
" Hindu Law," 8th ed , pp. 185-192 ; 
and Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," 
pp. 298-306. For a discussion of 
the texts and the views of the com- 
mentators and other authorities, 
soo Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 
pp. 282-298, 

8 Sea Seetaram v. Bhunnook Dharee 
Sakye (1$63), 1 Hay, 260 ; Janokee 
Debea v, Go$wd Achwjea (1877), 2 
Calo. 365; Jamnabai v. Raychand 



NahaWiand (1883), 7 Bom. 225; 
Kashibai v. Tatia (1883), 7 Bom. 
221. 

* Bitttabakant Chowdrce v. fasten* 
prea Dassea Chowdrain (1838), 6 
Ben. Sel. B. 219 (2nd ed., 270) (this 
was a case of Sudras) ; Ramkislwre 
Acharj CJiowdree v, Bhoobunmoyee 
Debea Chowdrain, Ben. S. D. of 1859, 
229, at pp. 236, 237, affirmed on 
review, Ben. S. D. of 1860, vol. i. 
485, at p. 490. On appeal this 
question did not arise (Ehoobun Moyee 
Delia v. JRainbisho) e Acharj Chowdhry 
(1865), 10 M. I. A. 279; 3 W. R. 
P. C. 15). See Kerutnaraen v. 
Bhobinesrce (Mussummaut) (1806), 
1 Ben. Sel. R. 161, note to p. 162 
(2nd ed., 213, note to p. 214). See 
" Dattaka Mimansa," iv. 22 ; " Bat- 
taka Chandrika," n. 25, 30 (Suther- 
land's note), 31. 1 W. Macnaghten, 
73, note. This is disputed by G. C. 
Sarkar ("Law of Adoption," p. 362), 
who contends that the investiture in 
the natural family is not a bar to an 
adoption. As to the effect of an adop- 
tion when the ceremony of tonsure has 
been performed in the natural family, 
see post, p. 192. 

5 Ganga Sahai v. LeJchraj Singh 
(1886), 9 All. 253, at p. 328. See Rup 
Chand (Lala) v. Jambu Parshad (1910), 
37 I. A. 93 ; 32 All. 247 ; 14 0. W. N. 
545; 12 Bom. L. B. 402. 

c As to the age for such investi- 
ture, see Colebrooke, note to "Dat- 
taka Mimansa," s. 4, para. 23 ; Cole- 
brooke's " Digest," vol. iii. p. 104, 

7 Bulldbakant CJiowdree v. Kishcn* 
prea Dassea Chowdrain (1838), 6 Ben, 
Sel. B. 219 (2nd ed., 270); Nttra* 
daye (Ranee) v. Bholanath Doss, Ben. 
S. IX A, 1853, p. 553; "Dattaka 



OUAV. III.] 



AGE. 



147 



An lumicuried Sudra, of any age, \\iio is in other respects Sudnw. 
qualified, can be adopted according to all the schools, 1 

In the Madras Presidency the same rules apply, 2 except Madras, 
that a Brahmin boy of the same gotra 3 can be adopted after 
the thread ceremony has been performed, but before marriage. 4 

In Western India there is no objection to the adoption of 
married man even if he has children. 5 

It has been held that a married Sudra of a different gotra can be adopted, 6 
and the adoption of a married Brahmin of a different gotra, having children 
at the date of his adoption has been upheld. 7 When he is of the same 
gotra it follows that there can be no objection. 8 

The rule of Hindu law requiring a difference of age between the adoptive Difference 
father or mother and the boy, 9 is apparently merely directory. 10 boy a^d 

If a boy, eligible in other respects, upon whom the ceremonies of adopter. 
chitdakanna (tonsure) and iipanayana (investiture with the sacred thread) 
have not been performed in his natural family, can be obtained, he should 
be preferred, but the fact that such ceremonies have been performed does 
not invalidate the adoption. 11 



Chandnka," ii. 29, 32; Strange's 
"Hindu Law," vol. i. p. 91. The 
adoption of a married Ahir was held 
invalid in Jhunka Prasad v. Nathu, 
(1913), 35 All. 263. 

1 See Papamma v. V. Appa Rau 
(1893), 16 Mad. 384, at pp. 396, 397, 
in which case the Court considered 
that the adoption of an unmarried 
man'of over forty years of age would 
not be invalid on the mere ground 
of age. 

2 Pichuvayyan v. Subbayyan (1889), 
13 Mad. 128 ; Chetty Qolum Prasunna 
Vencatachella Reddyar v. Chetty Colum 
Moodoo Vencatachella Reddyar, Mad. 
S. D. A. 1823, p. 406; Sevagamy 
Nachiar v. Mooto Vizia Raghoonadha 
Satoopathy, ibid. p. 101; Strange's 
"Hindu Law," vol. i. pp. 87-91 ; 
cases in vol. ii. at pp. 87, 102, 109, 
110 ; Sreenevassien v. Sashyummal, 
Mad. Dec. of 1859, 118 ; Veerapermall 
Pillay v. Narrain Pillay (1801), 1 Mad. 
N, C. 78. See Vythihnga Muppanar 
v. Vijayathammal (1882), 6 Mad. 43. 
As to Sudras, see Pappamma v. 7. 
Appa Ran (1893), 16 Mad. 384, at p. 
396. 

8 As to the meaning of "gotra" 
see ante, p. 39. 

4 Vfoaragava v. Ramalinga (1883), 
9 Mad, 148 ; Pickwayyan v, 8<ub'bay- 



yan (1889), 13 Mad. 128. See P. 
Venkantesaiya v. Venkata Charlu 
(1866), 3 Mad. H. C. 28. 

5 Mhalsdbai v. Vtihoba Khandappa 
Gulve (1862), 7 Bom. H. C. App. 
xsvi. See Sadashiv Moreshvar Ghate 
v. Hari Moreshvar Ghate (1874), 11 
Bom. H C. 190. As to the effect of 
the adoption upon the rights of his 
children, see post, pp. 179, 190. 

6 Lakstnappa v. Ramava (1875), 
12 Bom. H. C. 364. See also Nathaji 
Krishnaji v. Hari Jagoji (1871), 8 
Bom. H. C. (A. C.), 67. 

7 Dharrw Dagu v. Ramkrishna 
Chimmji (1885), 10 Bom. 80. See 
also Laksmappa v. Mamava (1875), 
12 Bom. H. 0. 364, at pp. 371, 373. 

8 See BrijWtookunjee Muharaj 
(Sree) v. Qokoolootsaojee Muharaj 
(Sree) (1816), '1 Borr. 181, at p. 195, 
where the adoption of a married 
Brahmm of 45 years of age belonging 
to the same gotra was upheld. 

a Steele, pp. 44, 182 ; V. N. 
Mandlik, p. 471. 

10 Gopal Balkrishw Kenjale v. 
Vishnu Raghunath Kenjale (1898), 
23 Bom. 250, at p. 257. 

11 DJiarma Dagu v. Ramkrishna 
Chimnaji (1885), 10 Bom. 80 ; Late* 
mappa v. Ravnava (1875), 12 Bom. 
H, C. 364, at p. 370. 



148 



OEPHAN. 



[CHAP. m. 



Jams. 



Boy who 
has be#n 
previously 
adopted. 



Personal 
detects. 



Brihmo. 



In the Punjab there is* no limit of age, and the performance of the 
thread ceremony or of marriage in the family does not invalidate the 
adoption, 1 

Among Jains there is no limit of age, 2 and a married man may be 
adopted. 3 In a case of Agarwala Jains, 4 who belong to the twice-born 
classes, the Privy Council upheld an adoption of a married man, but 
pointed out that the custom would have to be proved in each case. 

An orphan, whether he be a minor or an adult, cannot be 
adopted. 5 

This follows from the rule that only a father or mother can give in 
adoption. 

A boy \vho has been taken in adoption, cannot be taken 
again in adoption. 7 

As to a joint adoption by two widows, see ante, p. 108. 

Where a boy ia disqualified by personal defects from in- 
heriting, it is not settled whether he can be adopted. Apparently 
he cannot. 18 

A defect which would attach to the boy m consequence of a fault on 
the part of his parents would not operate as a disqualification. 9 

There is no objection to the adoption of the Brahmo son of a Brahmo. 10 



1 In MdkluMi v. Nil&a, Punjab 
Records of 1868, case Ko. 37, p. 96, 
the Chief Court upheld the adoption 
of a man of the age of 30. 

a Gouindnath Roy (Maliarajah) v. 
Gulal Clwnd (1833), 5 Ben. Sel. R. 
270 (new edition, 322); Ritficurn 
Lalla v. Soojun Mull Lctllah, 9 Mad. 
Jur. 21, referred to in SJteo tiingh Rai 
v. DalJio (Mussumat) (1874), G N. W. 
P. 382, at p. 402. 

5 Manohar Lai v. Banarsi Das 
(1907), 29 All. 495. 

* Rup Chand (Lala) v Jambu 
Parsliad (1910), 37 I, A. 93 ; 32 All. 
247 ; 14 C. W. N. 545 ; 12 Bom. L. E. 
402. 

6 Shrinivas Sarjerav v. Balwant 
Venlcatesh (1913), 37 Bom. 513; 
15 Bom. L. B. 533; Vaithiltngam 
Mvdcdi v. Murugawn (1912), 37 
Mad 529; SubbaLuwmmal v. Am- 
wo&wtti Ammal (1864), 2 Mad. H C. 
129 ; Batwv&rav Wmkar v. Bayabai 
(1869), C BODOL H. C. 0. J. 83; 

v. Bhi^incfa^a (1873), 



10 Bom. H. C. 268. As to the custom 
of the Agarwal Banias of Zira, see 
Chiman Lai v. Han CMnd (1913), 40 
L A. 156 ; 40 Calc. 879 ; 17 C. W. N. 
885 ; 15 Bom. L. E 646. 

6 Ante, p. 136. 

7 G.C Barter's "Law of Adoption," 
pp. 281, 282. Sec "Dattaka Mi- 
mansa," s 1, para. 30; s. 2, paras. 
40-47. 

8 Sutherland in his " Synopsis " ; 
Stokes' " Hindu Law Books," p. 665, 
says, " It is an obvious inference that 
the person selected should be exempt 
from any disqualification, which 
might prevent him fulfilling the 
purpose of the adoption." This is 
supported by Nanda Pandita, " Dat- 
taka Mimansa," s 2, para. 62. See, 
however, Sarkar's "Law of Adoption,'* 
pp. 349, 350. 

Sarkar's "Law of Adoption,'* 
p. 350. 

10 Kumm Rumari Roy v. Satyaran* 
fan Das (1903), 30 Calc. 999: 7 
C.W.N.784. 



CHAP. III.] SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTIONS. H9 

The simultaneous adoption of two or more sons is invalid Simultaneous 
as to alU adoptlons ' 

The practice of simultaneous adoptions of two or more sons seems to 
have been prevalent in Bengal after 1846, and to have owed its origin to 
the ingenuity of Hindu lawyers, who attempted thereby to evade the effect 
of the decision of the Privy Council in Hung&ma v. Alchama,* in which 
an adoption during the lifetime of a previously adopted son was declared 
void. 3 

It may in some cases be difficult to determine whether the adoptions 
were simultaneous, and, therefore, both void, or merely successive, in 
which case the latter only would be void In Siddessory Dassee v. Doorga- 
chum Sett,* Phear, J., said, " But, moreover, on that occasion, the 
ceremonies for the two boys were carried on, practically speaking, simul- 
taneously, although possibly the beginnings and endings were not abso- 
lutely synchronous. If either boy was adopted, both were adopted, and 
it would be an outrage to common sense to say otherwise than that they 
wore adopted at one and the same time," 

In the case of adoption the test of eligibility of the adopted 
son for adoption must be the test which would have applied 
had the adoption been made by the husband himself in his 
lifetime, 5 

ACT OF ADOPTION. 
There must in every case be an actual corporeal gift and Giving and \ 

taking 110066" 

acceptance of the boy in adoption, 6 coupled with an expression sary. 
of the intention of the one person to give, and of the other to 
accept, the boy in adoption. 7 

1 AWioy Ghundcr BagM v. Kala- 5 Putt it Lai v. Parlati Kunwar 
paliar Haji (1885), 12 I. A. 198 ; 12 (Musamaul) (1915), 42 I. A. 155, 
Calo. 406 ; S. C. in Court below, at p. 160 ; 37 All. 359, at p. 366 ; 
(fi/anendro Chunder LaUri v. Kalla 19 C. W. N. 841, at p. 847 ; 17 Bom. 
Pahar Hajee (1882), 9 Calc, 50 ; 11 L. R. 549, at pp. 553, 554. 

C. L. B 297 ; Surendrakeshav Roy v. Bireswar MooJcerji v. ArdJia 

Doorgasundari Dassee (1892), 19 I. A. Chunder Roy Chowdhry (1892), 19 

108 ; 19 Oalc. 513 ; S. C. in Court I, A. 101 ,- 19 Calc. 452 ; Shosiwth 

bolow, Doorgasundari Dossee v. Ghose(Mahas7ioya)v.Kri$7inaSoo'ndari 

Surendra, Keshav Roy (1886), 12 Don (Srimati) (1880), 7 I, A. 250 ; 6 

Calc. 686; Siddessury Dossee v. Calc. 381; 7 C. L. B. 313; V. 

Doorga Churn Selt (1865), 2 Ind. Jur. Singamma v. Vinjamuri Venkata- 

(KT. S.) 22; Bourke, 0. C. 360. See charlu (1868), 4 Mad. H. C. 365; 

also Monemothortath Dey v. Onontnatk Veerapermatt Pillay v. Narrain Pillay 

Day (1865), 2 Ind. Jur. (N. S.) 24. (1801), 1 Mad. N. C. 78. 

2 (1846), 4 M. I. A. 1 ; 7 W. B. 7 RanganayaJcamma v, Alwar Setti 
P. C. 57 ; ante, p. 103. (1889), 13 Mad. 214, at pp. 218, 

3 Seo Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 219. See also Govindayyar v. Dora- 
p. 1$4. 8<mi (1887), 11 Mad. 5, at p. 7, 

* (186$), 2 Ind. Jur. (N. S.) 22 ; where in referring to Sliosimtk 
Bowrke, 6, (X 360. Qlme (Maliatfioyn) v. Krwhm /Soonfari 



150 



ACT OF APOP1JON, 



[CHAP, in. 



Writing un- 
necessary 
Adoptions in 
Oudh. 



Invitations, 

etc. 



A mere gift by a document transferring tho boy, 1 or a con- 
structive gift of an absent boy, 2 or an expression of assent 3 or 
intention 4 -without an actual gift is insufficient. 

A deed or other writing in support of the act of adoption is unnecessary, 5 
but in cases to which the Oudh Estate Act, 1869, 6 applies, an adoption by 
a widow must be by a writing executed and attested in manner required 
in case of a will, 7 and registered 8 

Although it is usual to invite relations to the performance of the 
ceremonies, and, in the case of large landowners, to represent the fact 
of the adoption to the Government authorities, the absence of such invita- 
tion or representation does not vitiate the adoption. 9 The consent of the 
ruling authority is not necessary, 10 even in the case of vatandars, 11 unless 
it be a condition of the exercise of a permission to adopt. 12 

As to the custom of the Agarwal Banias of Zira, see ante, p. 148. 



Dasi (Srimati) (1880), 7 I. A. 250 ; 
6 Calc. 381; 7 C, L. R. 313, the 
Court said, "the decision is an 
authority for the proposition that any 
overt act is not sufficient, but that 
there must be corporeal delivery of the 
child by a person competent to give, 
to a person competent to take, ac- 
companied by the declaration on the 
one side, ' I give the child in adoption,' 
and on the other, ' I take the child in 
adoption.' " Kenchawa v. Ningupa 
(1866), 10 Bom. H. 0. 265, note. 

1 See Shosinath Ghosq (Maha- 
shoya) v. Krishna Soondari Dasi 
(Srirwti) (1880), 7 I. A. 250, at pp, 
255, 256; 6 Calc. 381, at pp. 388, 
389 ; 7 C. L. R. 313, at pp. 318, 319 ; 
Sreenarain Milter v. Kishen Soondory 
Dassee (Sreemutty) (1873), I. A Sup. 
Vol. 149; 11 B. L. R. 171; S. C. 
sub nomine, Nogendro Chundro Mittro 
v. Kishen Soondery Dossee, 19 W. R. 
C. R. 133; S. C. in Court below, 
Snnarayan M^tter v. Krishna Sundari 
Dasi (Snmali) (1869), 2 B. L. R. 
A. a 279; 11 W. R. C. R. 196; 
Mandit Koer (Mussamat) v. Phool 
Chand Lai (1897), 2 C. W. N. 154 ; 
Dhapdbai v. C/iampalal (1899), 1 
Bom. L. R. 842. 

2 8^dde8sory Dossee v Doorgachurn 
Sett (1865), Bourke, 0. C. 360 ; 2 Ind. 
Jur. N, S. 22. 

8 Pashetiappa v. Shivlinganwt, 
(1873), 10 Bom. & C. 268, at p. 270 ; 
Kenehawav.Ningupa (1867), 10 Bom. 
H. C. 265* note ; Qourbullub v. Juger- 
Witter (1823), P. Maen. 



Cons. H. L. 217; 1 Morley's "Di- 
gest," 18. 

4 Banee Pershad (Baboo) v. Abdool 
Hye (Moonshee Syud) (1876), 25 
W. R. C. R. 192. 

5 Bayabai v. Bah (1866), 7 Bom. 
H. C. App. i, at ii. ; Sootroogun 
Sutputty v. Sdbitm Dye (1834), 2 
Knapp, 287, at p. 290 ; 5 W. R. P, 
C. 109. 

6 I of 1869. 

7 Act X. of 1865, s. 50, applied 
to wills under Act I. of 1869 by s. 19 
of the latter Act. 

8 S. 22 (8). This would apparently 
not take the place of tho corporeal 
giving and receiving required by 
Hindu law. See Bhaiya Rdbidat 
Singh v. Indar Kunwar (MaJiarani] 
(1888), 16 I. A. 53, at p. 56;- 16 
Calc. 556, at p. 56L 

9 See Alctnk Manjari v. Fakir Chand 
Sarcar (1834), 5 Ben. Sel. R. 350 
(new edition, 418); Naihar Govind 
Kulkarm v Narayan Vithal (1877), 
1 Bom. 607 ; Ranqubai v. BhagrtUibai 
(1877), 2 Bom. 377; Ramchandm 
Vasudev v. Nanaji Timaji (1870), 
7 Bom. H. C. (A. C. J.) 26. 

10 WiaskerBuchajeev.Narrofiagho- 
nath (1826), Bom. Sel. R, 24, at p. 
29 ; ftamchandra Vasudev v, Nanajt 
Timaji (1870), 7 Bom. H. C. (A. 0. 
J.) 26 ; Narhar Cfovind Kulkarni v. 
Narayan Vithal (1877), 1 Bom. 607. 

11 Balaji v. DaUo (1902), 4 Bom. 
L. R. 762. 

12 jfafljprfaf v. BJwgirtfabai (1877), 
2 Bom. 377. 



CHAP. HI,] CONSIDEKATIONj CONDITIONAL GIFT. 151 

The person giving in adoption ought not to roceivo any Consideration 
consideration for the adoption ; but it has been hold that if adoption, 
he does so the adoption is not void. 1 

A contract to pay money in consideration of giving or receiving a son in 
adoption is illegal and cannot be enforced, 2 but it does not affect the 
validity of the adoption, unless it be certain that the adopting father or 
mother acted from corrupt motives alone. 3 

As to an arrangement made by a widow to reserve the property of her 
husband for herself, see post, pp. 184, 185. 

Where a father gives his son in adoption, he has apparently CondHionai 
no power to impose a condition invalidating the adoption on adoption, 
the happening or non-happening of a future event ; but in 
giving to his wife permission to give in adoption, he may subject 
the exercise of that power to a condition, and unless that con- 
dition be substantially fulfilled the gift has no effect.* 

If the condition be an illegal or immoral one, the gift would be eficetual 
even though the condition be not performed. 

It is by no means clear what effect upon the boy's position in his natural 
family would be caused by an adoption upon a condition which is not 

fulfilled. 

As to conditions with regard to the property made at the time of the 

adoption, see post, pp. 184-186. 

As to gifts of property conditional on adoption, see poet, pp. 204, ^U5. 

The person taking 5 and the person giving o in adoption Mental^ ^ 
must be mentally capable of understanding, and must g^ and 

1 Murugappa Chetti v. Nagappa gabai (1896), 22 Bom. 199. Cf, 
CMii (1905), 29 Mad. 161. See ante, p. 102. 

Eaton Kis'hor Acharjee Chowdhry v. 4 Rangulai v. Bhagirthibai (1877), 

Hans Chandra Chowdhry (1874), 13 2 Bom. 377. In this case the previous 

B L. R. App. 42; 21 W.KC.R. 381. sanction of Government was tho 

G! 0. Sarkar says ("Law of Adop- condition required by the natural 

tion," p. 375), "In the majority of father. 

cases some sort of valuable considera- 6 Tayammaul v. Sasliachatta Nm* 

tion is given by the adopter to tho Jeer (1865), 10 M. L A. 429 (see this 

natural father for inducing him to case as to an adoption by a person t 

give away his son." ^remis) ; *Mbabri OMuv. 

2 Sec Eshan Kislior Acharjee fa&henprea Dassea Chowdrain (1838), 
Chowdhry v. Hans Chandra Chow- 6 Ben. Sel. R. 219 (2nd edition, 270) ; 
dhry (1874), 13 B. L. R. App. 42; Mandit Koer (Mustammat) v. Phool 
21 W. B. 0. B. 381; Mahableth- Cfand Lai (1897), 2 0. W. N. 154, 
var Fondbha v. Durgdbai (1896), 22 at p. 166. 

Bom. 199, at p. 206 ; Sitaram Pandit Bireswar MooTcerp v ' ; ^dha 

(W) v. Haritor Pandit (Shri) (1910), Chunder JKoy Chowdhry (1892), 19 

35 Bom.,1,69; 12 Bom. L. R. 910. L A. 101, at pp, 105, 106 ; 19 Gale. 

See MaWdeshvar Fondba v. Dw- 452, at p 461. 



152 FBAUD, [CHAP. in. 

understand the significance of the act, otherwise thcro is no 
valid gift or accoptance, as the case may be. 

There may bo a question as to whether the amount of mental capacity 
which is requisite in the case of a will l is necessary for the taking a child 
in adoption, 3 as the taking in adoption is a matter of religious necessity, 3 

fraud, etc. It has been held that if an adoption has been brought about 

by fraud, coercion, 4 mistake, 5 misrepresentation, 6 undue 
influence, 7 or otherwise than by the free consent of the persons 
giving and taking in adoption, it is voidable, and that it can be 
ratified subsequently if jno one's interest is prejudicially affected 
by such ratification.^ 

It is, however, submitted that in case of such fraud, etc., the adoption is 
void, and is incapable of ratification. It is submitted that the validity 
of an adoption must be determined at the time, and cannot depend upon 
future events. 9 Otherwise the position of the adopted son and his relation 
to his natural and to his adoptive family would remain in suspense. 10 In 
every case the interests of some of the adoptive relations may be prejudicially 
affected by an adoption. The interests of the natural relations would be 
affected, but not prejudicially. The question is one of status, not of 
contract, and is not affected by considerations which are available in 
cases of contract* 

Where the adopter is a young widow, the Court will require clear 
evidence that, at the time of adoption, she was fully informed of her rights, 
and of the effect of adoption. 11 There may, however, be some relaxation of 
the strictness of this rale where the husband has directed his wife to adopt. 13 

1 See Phillips and Trcvelyan's Vznkata Nara&imha Appa Row v. 
"Hindu Wills," 2nd ed., pp. 12-15. PartJiaswathy Appa Row (1913), 41 

2 Banee Pershad (Baboo) v. Abdool L A. 51 ; 37 Mad. 199 ; 18 C. W. 
Hye (Moonsliee Syud) (1876), 25 W. N. 554 ; 16 Bom. L. R. 328. 

B. C. R. 192, at p. 195. * See Kovvidi Sattiraju v. Pattam- 

3 Ante, p. 101. sctti Venkatasivami (1916), 32 Mad, 

4 Ranganayakamma v. Alwar SeLti L. J. 119. 

(1889), 13 Mad. 214, at pp. 220 to * Cf. post, p 156. 

224. See Sarkar's "Law of Adop- Baydbai v. Bate (1866), 7 Bom. 

turn," pp. 205, 431. H. C., App. i., at pp. xx., xxi. See 

6 Bayabai v. Bala (1866), 7 Bom. Tayammaul v. SashacJiella Naiker 

H C , App. i , at pp. xx , xxi (1865), 10 M. L A., at p. 433. There 

6 See Baydbai v. Bate (1866), 7 Bom. have been a number of cases in which 
H. C., App. i., at pp. xx , xxi , xxui. it has been held that if it is sought 

7 SomaseMiara Raja v. SubJtadra- to make a purdahnashin woman re- 



- 

(1882), 6 Bom. 524. See Ba- sponsible for acts which are detri- 

v. #afo(1866), 7 Bom. H. C., mental to her interests, it must be 

App. i, at pp. xx., xxi. clearly shown that she knew the 

*Ver$ata Narasimha Appa, Row effect of such acts, and that no advan- 

(Sri Rajah) v. Ramgayya Appa Row tage was taken of her: see#os*,p. 511. 

(Sn Rajah) (1905), 29 Mad. 437. The Baydbai v. Bala (1866), 7 Bom. 

question did not arise on appeal : H. C., App. i., at pp. xx., xxi. 



CHAP. III.] 



ASSENT. 



153 



ceremonies. 
Sudras. 



As to allegation and proof of fraud, sec Bal Gangadhur Titok v. SJiri 
Shnnivas Pandit (1915), 42 I. A. 135 ; 39 Bom. 441 ; It) C. W. N. 720 ; 
17 Boni. L. B. 527, 

Whero a person who has attained the ago of majority l Irf A^ent o 
adopted, his assent would bo essential to the adoption. InSdo 8 pted. 
other cases no such assent is necessary. 2 

In the case of Sudras no religious ceremonies aro necessary. 3 

An intentional omission to perform oven unnecessary ceremonies, with 
a view to leave the adoption unfinished, 4 or a non-performance of con- 
templated ceremonies in consequence of death, or of some other cause, 
may be evidence to show that the adoption is incomplete. 

Except in the Punjab, 5 and amongst Jainai, 6 tho performance Twice-born 
of the datta lioimm 7 is apparently necessary in tho caso of tho c ass63 ' 
twice-born classes, where the boy is not of the same goira as 
the adoptive father, 

No ceremonies are necessary in an adoption in the dvyanwshyayana 
form among the Nambudri Brahmins. 8 

Where the boy is of the same gotra as the adoptive father Boy of same 



1 I.e. the age of majority accord- 
ing to Hindu law, ante, pp. 46, 47. As 
to cases where the adoption of majors 
is possible, see ante, pp. 147, 148. 

2 Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," pp. 
280, 281. In Strange's " Hindu Law," 
vol. i. p. 88, it is said that "the 
adopted son must consent," but tho 
authority there given (KulUan Sing 
v. Kirpa Sing (1795), 1 Ben. Scl B. 
9 (2nd ed., p. 11)) was the case of a 
Xritrima adoption, where the consent 
of the person adopted would always 
be necessary, post, p. 159. 

3 Shosinath Ghose (Mahashoya) 
v. Krishna, Soondari Dasi (Snmati) 
(1880), 7 I. A. 250, at p. 255; 6 
Gale 381, at p. 388 ; 7 0. L. B. 313, 
at p. 319 ; Indromoni Chowdhrani v. 
Behanlal Mulliclc (1879), 7 I. A. 24 ; 
5 Gale. 770; 6 C. L. B. 183. See 
Govindayyar v. Dorasami (1887), 11 
Mad. 5, at p. 6 ; Thangathanni v. 
Ramu Mudali (1882), 5 Mad. 358; 
Atmaram v. Madho Rao (1884), 6 All. 
276, at p. 281 ; +Ravji Vinayafaav 
Jaganncdk Shmkarsett v. LafaTvmbai 
(1887), 11 Bom; 38^ at pp. 393, 394; 



Nittianand Gliose v. Krishna, Dyal 
Qhose (1871), 7 B, L. B. 1 ; 15 W. B. 
G. B. 300 ; PerJcash Chunder Roy v. 
Dhunmonee Dassea, Ben. S. B. A. 
1853, p. 96. 

4 Banee Pershad (Baboo) v. Abdool 
Hyc. (Moonshee Syud) (1876), 25 W. 
B. C. B. 192, at p. 198 ; Valtibhai v. 
Govind Kashinath (1899), 24 Bom. 
218, at pp. 226, 227 ; 1 Bom. L. B. 
770. See Astia Mokon Ghosh Moulik 
v. NirodeMohon Ghosh Moulik (1916), 
20 C W. N. 901. 

5 Tupper's "Punjab Customary 
Law," vol. hi. p. 82. 

LaJchmiChandv. Gatto Bai (1886), 
8 All. 319 ; see Rup Chand (Lola) v. 
Jambu Parshad (1910), 37 I. A. 93 ; 
32 All. 247; 14 G. W. N 545; 12 
Bom. L. B. 402. As to the rites 
which are usual among Jains, see 
Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 454. 

7 Oblations of clarified butter to 
fire, Wilson's " Glossary." 

8 Shanlcaran v. Kesavan (1891), 15 
Mad. 6. As to this form of adoption, 
see post, pp. 190-193. 



154 



CEREMONIES, 



[CHAP, in. 



as, for instance, where he is a brother's son, no religious cere- 
monies are necessary, 1 

There is not very much direct authority on the question whether the 
absence of religious ceremonies in any case invalidates an adoption among 
the twice-born classes. In an old case the Judicial Committee said, 3 
" Although neither written acknowledgments nor the performance of any 
religious ceremonials are essential to the validity of adoptions ; " but it 
does not appear that the question as to the necessity of religious ceremonies 
was raised in that case. 

In reference to these remarks the Judicial Committee said in a sub- 
sequent case, 3 '* It cannot, however, be considered as more than a dictum, 
binco the decision was against the adoption in fact," 

In a still later case, where the parties were Sudras, the Judicial Com- 
mittee said, 4 " It is perfectly clear that amongst the twice-born classes 
there would be no such adoption by deed, because certain religious core- 
monies, the datta homam in particular, are in their case requisite " 

Although it has been considered that this expression of opinion decides 
the question, 5 " it is doubtful if more was intended than to point out that 
such religious ceremonies are requisite as part of the purely ceremonial 
law, not that the validity of an adoption for civil purposes depends on their 
due observance." 6 At any rate, so far as the Judicial Committee is con- 
cerned, there are only contradictory dicta on the subject. 

The High Courts have accepted the view that the performance of the 
datta Jwmam is necessary, 7 but in one case only 8 has a High Court, so far 



1 Valubai v. Govind Kashinath 
(1899), 24 Born. 218 ; 1 Bom. L. B. 
770, approved of by the Privy Council 
in Bal Gangadhar Filak v. Shnnwas 
Pandit (Shri) (1915), 42 I. A. 135; 
39 Bom. 441; 19 C. W. N. 729; 
17 Bom. L. B. 527; Govindayyar v. 
JDorasami (1887), 11 Mad. 5, preferring 
on this point Singamma v. V^nja 
muri Venkatacharht, (1868), 4 Mad. H, 
C. 165, to Venkata v. Subhadra (1884), 
7 Mad. 548 ; Ranganayakamma v. 
Alwar Sdh (1889), 13 Mad. 214, at p. 
219 ; Atmaram v. Madho Rao (1S84), 
6 All. 276; Refki v. Lak Pati 
Pujan (1914), 20 C. W. N. 19. See 
Huebut Rao Mankur v. Govind Rao 
Bulwant Rao Mankur (1820), 2 Borr. 
75, at pp. 85, 87. 

2 Sootroogun Sutputhy v. Sabitra 
Dhye (3834), 2 Knapp, 287 ; 5 W. R. 
P. C. 109. 

3 Indromom CTwwdhmni v. Behari* 
hi JMM?(1879), 7 L A. 24, at p. 36; 
5 Calc. 770, at p. 774 ; 6 C. L. B. 183, 
at p. 191, 

4 Sh<mnatfb Qhose (MoJwshoya) v. 
Krishna Soondari Dasi (1880), 7 I. A. 
250, at p. 256 ; 6 Calc. 381, at pp. 



388, 389 ; 7 C. L. B. 313, at p. 319. 

5 Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Sctti 
(1889), 13 Mad 214, at p. 220. The 
parties in this case were Vaisyas, but 
as there was no effective giving or 
taking, the decision of this question 
was not necessary. 

6 Atma Ram v. Madho Rao (1884), 
6 All. 276, at p 283. 

7 RaTiganayakamma v. Alwar Seiti 
(1889), 13 Mad. 124, at p. 220; 
Venkata v. Sulhadra (1884), 7 Mad. 
548 ; Gomn&ayyar v. Dorasami (1887), 
11 Mad. 5, at pp. 9, 10 ; CJiandramala 
Patta Haliadem (Sri Sri) v. MuHuma- 
la Patta Mahadew (Sri) (1882), C Mad. 
20 ; Ahnaram v. Madho Rao (1884), 
6 All. 276 ; Oomrao Singh (Thakoor 
v. Mehtab Koonwer (Thakooranee) 
(1868), 3 Agra H. C. 103A. See 
Ravji Vinayakrav Jagannath Shankar- 
sett v. Lakshmibai (1887), 11 Bom. 
381, at pp. 393, 394; "Dattaka 
Mimansa," v. 36 ; West and Biihler, 
922, 923 ; Stoele, 45. 

8 Luchmun Loll v. Mohun Lall 
Maya Oayal (1871), 10 W. B. C. B. 
179 ; <po&t, p, J55, note 8. 



CHAP. III.] CEREMONIES. 155 

as the writer can ascertain, set aside an adoption on the ground that 
religious ceremonies had not been performed* 

It has been suggested l that adoption by a widow perhaps stands on Adoption by 
a different footing, as, " according to the sages, the twice-born females f 
hold the same position as Sudras with respect to the performance of religious 
ceremonies," but this distinction is not made by the eases which hold that 
religious ceremonies are necessary in the case of an adoption in one of the 
regenerate classes. In some of those cases 2 the adoption was made by a 
widow. 

The lioma ceremony may be performed at any time after Time of 
the actual giving and taking, and it does not seem to be necessary / 4 owi!a? nce 
that the father should perform it. Its peiformance after the 
death of the natural father, 3 or of the adoptive father, 4 does not 
invalidate the adoption. When the homa is necessary, the 
adoption is not complete until it is performed. 

Although it is usual to perform the lioma in tho dwelling- riaco of 
house of the adopter, 5 it is immaterial where the ceremony is pcl ouuanco ' 
performed. 6 

There seems to be nothing to prevent tho natural and Delegation o 
adoptive parents delegating to others tho performance of the Sfrdigioua 

, * ceremonies. 

homa ceremony. 7 

Although other religious ceremonies may be usual, it does other religi 
not appear that the absence of them invalidates an adoption. 8 ceremomes * 

* Sarkar, " Law of Adoption," p. G Oomrao SingJi (Thakoor) v. Mcli* 

381. Sec "Dattaka Mimansa," s 1, tab Koonwer (Thakooranec) (1868), 3 
para. 27; "Vyavahara Mayukha," Agra H. C. 103A. 

s. 1, para. 15. 7 See Siibbarayar v. Subbammal 

2 Luchmun Loll v. Mohun Latt (1898), 21 Mad. 497 ; Lakslimibai v. 
Bhaya Gayal (1871), 16 W. R. C. E. Kamcliandra (1896), 22 Bom. 500. 
179 ; Banganayalcamma v. Alwar Setti As to the delegation of the giving 
(1889), 13 Mad. 214 ; Ravji Vinaya- and receiving, see ante, pp. 132, 136. 
krav Jaggannath SJiankarsett v. Lak- 8 In Luchmun Loll v. Mohun Latt 
shmibai (1887), 11 Bom. 381 ; Atma- Bhaya Gayal (1871), 16 W. K 0. R. 
ram v. Madho Rao (1884), 6 All. 179, the Court hold that the per- 
276 ; Oomrao Singh (Thakoor) v. formanoe of the yufrwti jay (sacrifice 
MeUal Koonw&r (Thalcooranee) (1868), for male issue) is essential to the 
3 Agra H. R. 103A. validity of an adoption among the 

3 Venkata v. Subhadra (1884), 7 three superior castes. G. C. Sarkar 
Mad. 549. In this case five years ("Law of Adoption," p. 383) sug- 
had elapsed. In the interval the gests that tho words " putresti jag " 
natural father died, but the homa were in the judgment in that case 
was performed by one of his sons. by mistake substituted for " datta 

* Subbarayar v. Subbammal (1898), homam,* 3 as the putresti jag is only 
21 Mad. 497 ; S. C. on appeal (1900), necessary when the ceremony of 
27 1. A. 162 ; 24 Mad. 214 ; 4 C. W. N. tonsur has "besn performed in tho 
304? 2 Bom. L. R. 982. natural family ("Dattaka Mimansa," 

Sads&r's " L^w of Adoption," pp. s. 4, paraa. 32, 49). 

382, 383. 



156 



CONSENT, 



[CHAP, m* 



Requirements 
of valid 
adoption. 



Subsequent 
event. 



Provided the above rules as to the capacity to take in 
adoption, the capacity to give in adoption, the capacity to 
bo taken in adoption, and as to the act of adoption, are followed, 
an adoption is valid ; otherwise it is void, 1 

The invalidity of an adoption, or of a power to adopt, cannot 
be cured by a subsequent event. 2 



not validate 
adoption. 



lUndmtions. 

(a) An adoption made during the lifetime of a son is not rendered valid 
by the death of such son. 3 

(b) A power to adopt a son as co-heir to a living son cannot be exercised 
even after the death of the living son. 4 

(c) The death of the son's widow, in whom the property has vested, 
does not validate an adoption made before her death, 5 

Except in so far as the law in certain cases requires the 
consent of kinsmen for the purpose of validating an adop- 
tion, 6 the consent of the person in whom the estate of the 
adoptive father is vested, or of the person or persons entitled 
in reversion, does not validate an adoption which is otherwise 
invalid 7 

It has been held in Bombay that where the adoption takes place with 
the full consent of the person in whom the estate is vested by inheritance, 
even when such person has only a limited estate such as that of a mother, the 
adoption is rendered valid, and the estate vested in the adopted son by 



1 Sec Ganga Sakai v. Lekhmj Singh 
(1886), 9 AIL 253, at pp. 296, 297. 
As to the application of the doctrine 
factum valet quod fieri not debuit, sec 
ibid.; Qurulmgaswam* (Sri Balusu) v. 
Ramalaksmamma (Sri Balusu) ; Radha 
Mohun, v. Hardai Bibi (1899), 26 I. A. 
113, at p. 144; 22 Mad 398, at p. 
423; 21 All. 460, at p. 487; 3 
C W. N. 427, at p. 448 ; 1 Bom. 
L. B. 220; Uma Deyi (Srimati) v. 
Ookoolanund Dan Mahapatra (1878), 
5 I. A. 40, at p. 53 ; 3 Calc. 587, at 
p 601 ; Lakshmappa v. Ramava 
(1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 362, at p. 398 ; 
Gt&pal Narhar Safray v. Hanmant 
Qanesh Bafray (1879), 3 Bom. 273, 
at,tx 293; Dharma Dagu v. Ram 
(1885), 10 Bom. 



Venkataswami (1916), 32 Mad. L. J. 
119. As to the postponement of the 
religious ceremonies, see ante, p. 155. 

3 Basoo Camumah v. -80500 Chinna 
Vencatasa, Mad. S. B. A. 1856, p. 
20 ; Veraprashyia v. Santauraja, Mad. 
S. B. A , 1860, p. 168 

* Joy Chundro Raee v. BJiyrtib 
Ghundro Rate, Ben. S. J>. A. 1849, 461. 

6 Pudma Coomari Debi v. Court of 
Wards (1881), 8 I. A. 229 ; 8 Calc. 302. 

6 Ante, pp. 120-126. " 

7 Annammah v, Mdbbu Bali Medck/ 
(1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 108, at p. 112; 
MohendrokU Mookerjee v. RooJdney 
Dabee (1864), Coryton, 42, at p. 43; 
Adivi Surya Prakasa Rao v. Ntda- 
marty Garigamju (1909), 33 Mad. 228. 
See Anandibai v. Kashtbai (1904), 
28 Bom. 461, at p. 465 ; 6 Bora. L. B. 
461 



CHAP. III.] 



CANCELLATION. 



157 



such consoiit ; l but there is authority to the contrary to be found in de- 
cisions of the same Court. 2 

It is submitted, that although the consent may have the effect of estop- 
ping the person consenting from denying the adoption, 3 and thereby divest - 
ing the estate, it cannot otherwise affect the validity of the adoption as for 
example it cannot affect the inheritance by or to collaterals. 

As to the consent of a son to an adoption by his father, see ante, 
pp. 105, 106. 

As to consent to the devesting of estates on adoption, see post, p. 197. 

As to estoppel and acquiescence, see post, pp. 172, 173. 

An adoption once validly made cannot be cancelled by the Cancellation or 
natural or adoptive parents, 4 or renounced by the adopted son. 5 enuneia lon * 

There is nothing to prevent an adopted son renouncing any interest 
in property which would come to him as such. 6 



KRITRIMA FORM OP ADOPTION. 
In the district of Mithila, or Tirhoot, 7 where it is the pre- Adoption in 

,. . ft . n-i- Kritrima f orm. 

vailing form, 8 and in the adjoining districts, 9 a form of adoption 
called the Kritrima 10 is practised, and is recognized by the 



1 Payapa Akkapa Patel v. Appanna 
<1898), 23 Bom. 327, at pp. 331, 332; 
Siddappa v. Ningangavda (1914), 38 
Bom. 724 ; 16 Bom. L. E. 663 ; Baku 
Amaji v. Ratnoji JKrishnarav (1895), 

21 Bom 319 ; Qopal Balknshna Ken- 
jale v. Vishnu Raghunath Kenjale 
(1898), 23 Bom. 250 ; Rupcliand Hin- 
dumal v. Rukhmdbai (1871), 8 Bom. 
H. 0. A C. J 114, at p. 122. From 
any point of view the consent of a 
minor is not sufficient to validate an 
adoption; Vasudeo Vishnu Manoliar 
v. Ramchandra Vinayak Modak (1896), 

22 Bom. 551. 

a See Dharnidhar (Shn) v. Chinto 
(1895), 20 Bom. 250, at p. 258; 
Vasudeo Vishnu Manohar v. Ram- 
Chandra Vinayak Modak (1896), 22 
Bom. 551, at p. 555; Bharmawa v. 
Sangappa (1900), 2 Bom. L. R. 628 ; 
Anandtbai v. Kashibai (1904), 28 
Bom. 461, at p. 465 ; 6 Bom. L. E. 
464. 

a Post, p. 172. 

* Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. ii. p. 
Ill ; Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. ii. 
p. 108 ; Sukhbasi Lai v. Chtman Singh 
(187*9), 2 All. 366; Huebut Rao 
M atofo&r >Y- Oovind Rao Buluxint Rao 
Manbur (i$2$), % Borr. 75. 



5 Mahadu Gfanu v. Bayaji Sldu 
(1893), 19 Bom. 239; RuveeBhudr 
v. Roopshunker Shunlerjee (1823), 2 
Borr. 656, at pp. 6G5, 671. 

6 Post, p. 188, 

7 See ante, p. 14. 

8 Kullean Sing v. Kirpa Sing (1795), 
1 Ben. Sel. E. 4 (new edition, 11) ; 
Sutputtee (Mussummaut) v. Itidiammd 
Jha (1816), 2 Ben. Sel. E. 173, note to 
p. 175 (new edition, 221, note to p. 
224) ; Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. in. 
p. 276 ; Strange's " Hindu Law," vol. 
ii. p. 204. There is nothing to pre- 
vent a dattaka adoption in the Mithila 
district by a man ; Sarkar's " Law of 
Adoption," p. 447; but a widow 
cannot adopt in that form according 
to the Mithila school. 

9 Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," p. 
448. In a note to Srincdh Serma v. 
Radhakaunt (1796), 1 Ben. Sel. B. 15, 
at p. 16 (new edition, 19, at p 21), 
it is said that this form of adoption 
"is in use in North Behar, and the 
contiguous districts of Baglipore 
(Bhaughulpore) and Pumea." 

10 Factitious Kritrima putra means 
the son made, Wilson's " Glossary/* 
p. 297. 



158 



KEITEIMA ADOPTION, 



[CHAP. III. 



Who can 
adopt. 



Who may be 
adopted. 



Relationship. 



This form of adoption is not to be confounded with the adoption of 
a Kriirima son according to the Smritis and commentaries. The latter 
held the same position as a Dattaka son, and the ceremonies and conditions 
were apparently identical in both cases. The Kritrima form of adoption 
which in ancient times prevailed throughout India has long been obsolete. 

The modern form of Kntnma adoption is based upon recent authorities, 
and is said to owe its origin to the prohibition x of adoption by a widow in 
the Mithila country. 2 

Either a man or a woman can adopt in this form, provided 
he or she has no son, 3 grandson, or great grandson in existence. 

A wife or widow so adopting does not require the assent of 
her husband or of his kinsmen. 4 She cannot adopt a son to 
her husband in this form, even if she receives his permission. 5 

A husband and wife can adopt jointly, or they may each 
adopt a separate son under this form. 6 

Except that he must belong to the same class 7 as the person 
adopting him, there is no restriction as to the person to be 
adopted. 8 

The relationship of the adopter and the adopted docs not, it is submitted, 
affect the validity of the adoption. 

Ill PurinessurDutt JJm (Cfiowtlree) v. Hunooman Dutt RoyJ* the adoption 
of a sister's son by a Brahmin in the Kritrima form was upheld, but in an 
earlier case, 10 the adoption of an elder brother by a younger brother was 
held invalid. 

In Niinkoo Singh v. Pwm Dhun Singh, 11 an adoption of a sister's son 
in the Kritrima form was upheld, but on the ground that the parties did 
not belong to one of the regenerate classes. 

According to the Dvaita-Parishishta of Kesaba Misra, a pundit of 
Mithila, even a father or a brother may be adopted. 12 



1 Ante, p. 126. 

2 W. Maenaghten's "Hindu Law," 
vol. i. pp. 95-100. 

3 Sarkar's "Law of Adoption, 1 ' 
p. 449. 

4 W. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 
vol ii. pp. I9o, 196. Shibkoeree 
(Mussamut) v. Joogun Singh (1867), 
8 W. R. C. R. 155, at p, 157; Col- 
lector of Tirhoot v. Huropershad 
Mohunt (1867), 7 W. R. 0. R. 500. 

5 See answers of pundits in Sree- 
narain JRai v. Bbya Jha (1812), 2 Ben 
Sol. R. 23, at p. 27 (new edition, 29, 
at pp. 34, 35). 

6 See Sreenamin JRai v. Bhya Jha 
(1812), 2 Ben. Sol. R, 23, at p. 27 
(new edition, 29, at p. 34) ; 1 W. 
Macn. 101. 

7 See ante, pp. 22, 23, 138. 



8 Purmessur Dutt Jha (Ghoutdree) 
v. Hunooman Dutt Roy (1837), 6 Ben. 
Sel. R. 192 (new edition, 235, at p. 
246) ; 1 Maenaghten's " Hindu Law," 
pp. 75, 76. 

9 (1837), 6 Ben. Sel. R. 192 (new 
edition, p. 235). 

10 Runjeet 8ing (Baboo) v. OWiye 
Narain Sing (Baboo) (1817), 2 Ben. 
Scl. R. 245 (new edition, 315). 
Sir Wm. Macnaghten points out 
(" Hindu Law," vol. i. p. 76, n.) that 
the authorities cited by the law 
officers in that case had relation to 
the Dattaka form of adoption. 

11 (1869), 12 W. R. C. R. 356. 

18 Ooman Dutt v. Kunliia Singh 
(1822), 3 Ben Sel. R. 145, at p. 149 
(new edition, 192, at p. 199). 



CHAP. III.] KBITBIMA ADOPTION. 159 

Sir William Macnaghten considers that there is no restriction except 
as to tribe, 1 but Sastri G. C. Sarkar 2 contends that the rule as to relation- 
ship applicable to an adoption in the Dattaka form 3 are equally applicable 
to an adoption in the Kritrima form. 

The age of the son adopted in this form is immaterial, 4 A e e ' 

The performance of the initiatory ceremonies in the natural family, 5 
or the marriage, 6 does not prevent the adoption. 

The consent of the adopted son, 7 and the consent (or at Consent, 
any rate the absence of the express dissent) of his parents, 
if living, is necessary to this form of adoption, when he is a 
minor. 8 

The relationship being one created by contract, the consent of all the 
necessary parties must synchronise. An assent given by the son after the 
death of the adoptive father to an adoption to which the adoptive father 
assented before his death will not be sufficient. 9 

No ceremonies are necessary, 10 and no particular form is Ceremonies, 
required to be observed. 

Colebrooke ll cites from " Rudradhara in the Suddhiviveka," the 
following : 

" The form to be observed is this. At an auspicious time, the adopter 
of a son having bathed, addressing the person to be adopted, who has also 
bathed, and to whom he has given some acceptable chattel, says, * Be ray 
son*' He replies, * I am become thy son.' The giving of some chattel 
arises merely from custom. It is not necessary to the adoption. The 
consent of both parties is the only requisite ; and a set form of speech is 
not essential." 12 



1 I e. casto or class, " Hindu Law," Roopun Singh (1839), 6 Ben. Sel, B. 
vol. i. pp. 75, 70. 271 (new edition, p. 340) ; Suther- 

2 " Law of Adoption," p. 339, land's " Synopsis," C73 ; W. Hac- 
" Dattaka Mimansa," s. 6, paras, naghton's "Hindu Law," vol. ii. 
47-56. p. 196. 

3 Anie> pp. 138-144. 8 W. Macnaghten's ' Hindu Law," 

4 Shibkoer&e (Mussamut) v. Joogun ii. 196. 

Singh (1867), 8 W. B. 0. B. 155, at 9 Svtputtee (Mwsumat) v. Indm- 

p. 158; Ooman Dull v. Kunhia Singh nund Jha (181G), 2 Ben. Sol. B. 137 

(1822), 3 Ben. Sel. B. 145 (new (now edition, 221). 

edition, 192, at p. 197). 10 ShibJcoeree (Mussiamat) v. Joogun 

W. Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," Singh (1867), 8 W. B. 155, at p. 158. 

vol. ii. p. 196. " Initiation into the n " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 11, 

family of the adopter is not practised " para. 17, note. 

in this form of adoption, Strange'a 12 Bef erred to in Durgopal Singh v. 

" Hindu Law," vol. ii. p. 204. Roopun Singh (1839), 6 Ben. Sel. B. 

W. Macnaghten's " Hindu Law/' 271, at p. 273 (new edition, 340, at 

vol. i. p. 70. p. 342). See KuUean Sing v. Kirpa 

v f^chmun Lall v. Mohun Lall Sing (1795), 1 Ben. Sel. B. 9 (new 

Qayal (1871), 16 W. B. C. B. edition, 11, at p, 12). W. Mac- 

9^ at p- 180 ; Durgopal Singh v. naglxten's " Hindu Law>" vol. i. p. 98. 



160 



ILLATOH ADOPTION. 



[CHAP* in. 



A Kriirinia adoption, when once validly made, cannot be 
revoked. 1 



Qyawals 



IHatojn 
adoption. 



Effect of 

diatom 

adoption* 

Inheritance. 



SOME OTHEE SPECIAL AND LOCAL FORMS OF ADOPTION. 

In the district of Gya there is amongst the Gyawal Brahmins a practice 
of adoption in a Conn which is similar to the Kritrima form. It is purely 
contractual, and does not affect the position of the adopted son in his 
natural family. 2 

Among the Reddi caste 3 it is customary for a man who has no son 4 
to affiliate a son-in-law by what is called an Illatom 5 adoption. 

This custom prevails in the Bellary, Kurnool, Cuddapah, Nellore, and 
North and South Arcot districts, 6 but not among the Kondarazu caste of 
the Vizagapatani district. 7 There is no mention of this form of adoption 
in the Digests, and there are few decided cases on the subject. 8 It is 
necessary to determine each case according to the evidence as to the custom, 
and its effects, which may be brought forward. 9 

It is uncertain whether a man having a son can affiliate a son-in-law in 
this form of adoption, whether the affiliation is effected by the introduction 
into the family, or requires for its completion marriage with a daughter, 
and whether, if the father be dead, the right may be exercised by a surviving 
paternal grandfather. 10 

A son-in-law so adopted stands for purposes of inheritance in the place 
of a son, and in competition with natural born sons, 11 or sons adopted in 
the Dattaka form, 12 takes an equal share. 

He does not lose any of his rights of inheritance in his natural family, 13 
nor do the members of his natural family lose their rights of succession to 
him. 14 



1 W. Macnaghtcn's " Hindu Law," 
vol. ii. p. 196. 

2 See Luclimun Lai Chowdhry v. 
Kanltya Lai Mowar (1894), 22 I A. 
51 ; 22 Gale. G09 ; Luchmun Lall v. 
Mohun Lall Bliaya GayaL (1871), 16 
W. B. C. R 179 ; Lachmi Dai Mohu- 
tmn (Mus&t) v. K-tssen Lall Pdkan 
Muhaton Gayal (1906), 11 C W. N. 
147. 

3 The principal caste of Telinga 
cultivators, a caste of Sudras, Wilsoi^lf 
" Glossary," p. 442. 

4 See YacJtereddy Chtnna Bassavapa 
v. YacJwreddy Gowdapa (1835), 5 W. 
R. P. 0. 114. 

5 Ilfata, a bride's father having no 
son, and adopting his son-in-law, 
Wilson's " Glossary," p. 216 

s Batwami RMi (Sivada) v. Pera 
Reddi ($**fo) (1883), G Mad. 207, at 
p. 269. Se also Hanumantamma v. 
Kami Reddi (18S1), 4 Mftd, 272. 



7 Narasimha Razu v. VeeraWiadra 
RCLZIL (1893), 17 Mad. 287. 

8 Sqp Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi 
(1881), 4 Mad. 272, at p. 275 ; Tayv- 
mana "Reddi v. Perunal Reddi (1802) ? 
1 Mad. H. C, 51. 

9 See Chinna Olayya v. Sura Redd* 
(18Q7), 21 Mad 22G , Media Reddz v. 
Padmamma (1893), 17 Mad. 48, at 
p. 50. 

10 Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi 
(1881), 4 Mad. 272, at pp. 282, 283. 

11 Hanumantamma v. Rami Reddi 
(1881), 4 Mad. 272, at p. 283. This 
places him in a better position than 
a Dattalca son, see post, pp. 187, 188. 

12 Sec Ohenchamma v. SuVbaya, 
(1885), 9 Mad. 114, at p. 116. 

13 Balarami Reddi (S%vada) v. Pera 
Reddi (Sivada) (1883), 6 Mad. 267. 

14 Ramaleristna v. Subbalclca (1889), 
12 Mad. 442. 



CHAP, III.] MALABAll ADOl'TIONg. 101 

An illatom son-in-law can deal with property acquired by him, as such, Disposal 
in the same way as he can deal with any other self -acquired property. His 
sons have no right therein by virtue of their birth. 1 

The property received by the illatom son-in-law, as such, passes to his Heirs, 
heirs in the same way as self -acquired property. 3 The heirs of the adopter 
have no right in it. 

It is uncertain whether a son-in-law so adopted obtains a right to insist Right to 
upon partition of ancestral property during the father's lifetime. 3 Ho P artltlon ' 
apparently cannot do so, as it has been held that there is no right of sur- 
vivorship between him and an adopted son living in commensality with 
him, 4 and the interest acquired by the illatom son-in-law is to be treated as 
self -acquired property. 5 

The taking of a son-in-law in illatom adoption does not prevent the 
subsequent adoption of a Dattaka son. 6 

In Nair families governed by the HarumaJckatfiayam rule of inheritance, Malabar law, 
the right (and perhaps duty) to adopt females into the family or taravad tha^f^" 
is vested in the karnavan, or head of a family, but he cannot, except in the system, 
ease of custom or where it is essential to the preservation of the tararad, 
adopt without consulting the co -sharers. 7 It cannot be so essential until 
the last possible 7ca? navan has been reached. 

Under the Aliyasanta system the last female member of the family 
cannot adopt a daughter without the consent of her son. 8 

As to the adoption by Nanibudri Brahmins following this law, see 
Subramanyan v. Paramaswaran (1887), 11 Mad. 116. 

As to the law of adoption in Malabar, see Moore's " Malabar Law and 
Customs." 

In families governed by the Makkatayam 9 rule of inheritance, there Makkatayam 
are three systems of adoption. 10 system. 

1 Challa Papz Reddi v. Clialla Koti Subbaya (1885), Mad 114, at p. 115. 
Reddi (1872), 7 Mad. H. C. 25. 7 Thiruthipalli Raman Menon v, 

2 Chenchamma v. Subbaya (1885), Variangattil Palisscn Raman Menon 
9 Mad. 114 ; CTialla Papi Eeddi v. (1900), 27 I. A. 231 ; 24 Mad. 73 ; 
Challa Koti Meddi (1872), 1 Mad. 4 C. W N. 810, citing Strange'* 
H. 0. 25 ; Ramdkristna v. SMalla " Manual,' 9 s. 403, which is as 
(1889), 12 Mad. 442. Sec Alalla follows : " On failure of the sister's 
Reddi v, Padmamma (1893), 17 Mad. progeny, male and female, the head 
48, at p 50. of the family may make adoption. 

3 Hanumantamma v. Kami Reddi The descent being in the female line, 
(1881), 4 Mad. 272, at p. 283. Like the adoption must bo of a female, 
other questions as to the incidents of In view of the probable minority of 
this form of adoption this question her offspring at the period when the 
must be determined on evidence of management may fall in, a male, her 
custom, Chinna Gbayya v. Sura Reddi brother, may be taken m adoption at 
(1897), 21 Mad. 226. the same time with herself, in order 

* Chenchamma v. Subbaya (1885), to afford piovision for the adminis- 

9 Mad. 114. In Malla JReddi v. tration of the affairs of the family, 

Padmamma (1893), 17 Mad. 48, the and for conduct of the religious rites 

Court on the evidence decided against to be observed therein." 
a claim of survivorship made by a 8 Chandu v. Subba (1889), 13 Mad, 

male member of the family against 209 ; Cotay Hegaday v. Manjoo 

the daughters of the son of an illatom Kumpty, Mad. S. D. A. 1859, p. 138. 
son-i^iaw. fl Inheritance by the male line, 

3 AboW. Wilson's " Glossary," p 587. 

6 This was done in Gh&tchamma v, 10 4 * Travancoro Census of 1891,"' 

H.L. H 



162 NAMBUDIUS. [CHAP. in. 

(a) " In the first, ten hands or five persons take part, viz. the adopting 
parents, 1 the natural parents, and the boy." 

Wigram says that this form is probably almost identical with the 
ordinary Hindu adoption. 2 It is called pattulayyal dattu.* 

(&) Adoption by Chamatha, i.e. by burning a piece of sacred grass. 4 

(c) The third form is akin to the Kritrima form. It is " commonly 
adopted by Brahmin widows and Sudras for the purpose of perpetuating 
the family when it is in danger of becoming extinct. There is no limit as to 
age or number of persons adopted. The only limit seems to be that the 
person or persons adopted should be of the same vamsJiam or tribe as the 
adopter. Among Sudras the adoption should be of one or more females, 
but it is frequently accompanied by the adoption of a male for the purpose 
of providing for the future management of the adopter's property. Some- 
times a whole family of adults is adopted." 5 

Nambudris. The practice among Nambudris, that only the eldest marries, necessarily 

limits the right of adoption to his line. 6 " But if there is any male relative 
at all, however distant, then he is not entitled to the right of adopting. 
The nearest and oldest relative must be made to marry, and thus preserve 
the family continuity. But if there should be no prospect of his brothers 
getting issue, and if they should give then: consent to the act, then he may 
have recourse to an adoption, to which the consent of the other relatives 
is not necessary. If, however, he adopts one of his distant relatives, in 
that case the consent of all his other relations, however distant, will be 
necessary." 7 

Among the Nambudri Brahmins, 8 a widow can adopt or appoint an 
heir in order to perpetuate her illam, g in the absence of dayadies, whose 
relationship is the cause of two or three days' pollution, 11 or with their 
consent. 12 It is usual, but apparently not indispensable in such case, to 
require the person so adopted or appointed to marry for the purpose of 
continuing the illam. There is, apparently, no limit of age. 14 

There seems also to have been, or to be, a custom that if a Nambudri 
widow directs a person to marry to raise up issue for her illam, the status 



p, 686; Wigram's "Malabar Law 11 Mad. 157. 

and Custom," p. 4. 8 As to Kambudri Brahmins who 

1 Wigram's " Malabar Law and follow the Marumakkathayam system, 
Custom," p. 4. see Subramanyan v. Paramaswaran 

2 Rid. (1887), 11 Mad. 116. 

3 See Vasudevan v. Secretary of * A family. 
State (1887), 11 Mad. 157, at p. 174. 10 Kinsmen. 

* See Vasudevan v. Secretory of n Vasudevan v. Secretary of State 

State (1887), 11 Mad. 157, at p. 182. (1887), 11 Mad. 157, at p. 188, 

"Travancore Census of 1891," p. There is no substantial distinction 

C85. between the power to make a Kritrima 

6 Wigram's " Malabar Law and adoption (ante, pp. 157-160) and the 

Custom," pp. 4, 5. power to appoint an heir, ibid,, at 

6 Mayne's " Hindu law," 8th ed., p. 174. See also p. 189. 

p. 274. 12 Keshavan v. Vasudevan (1884), 

7 "Travancore Census, 1891," p. 7 Mad. 297. 

685. See Wigram's "Malabat Law 1S See Vasttdevan v. Secretary of 

and Custom,", pp. 13-15, As to the State (1887), 11 Mad. 157, at p. 189. 

general law of the Kambudris, see * Keshavan v. Vasudevan 

Vasudevan v. Secretary of State (187), 7 Mad 297, at p, 290. 



CHAP, III.] DANCING-GIULS. 163 

of the son in the illam for which he is begotten, is that of a son obtained iu 
gift by adoption. 1 

It is unsettled whether the Courts will recognize the common practice Adoption of 
of dancing-girls and prostitutes to adopt daughters, but except where JJaSfn ?*\ri. y 
the child has been taken in such a way as to make her reception punishable amTprosfi- "* 
by the Criminal law, it is submitted that there is no reason why the Courts tutes 
should not give effect to such usage. 2 

In cases of adoption, prior to the coming into force of the Indian Penal 
Code, 8 the Courts in Madras recognized the custom, 4 but declined to 
extend it by allowing a plurality of adoptions. 5 It was also held that no 
ceremonies were necessary, and that mere recognition was sufficient, 8 
Apparently the adoptive mother cannot adopt if she has a daughter. It 
is immaterial whether she has a son. 7 

In an old case in Bengal 8 the Court declined to recognize such adoptions, 
and in a Bombay case, 9 the report of which does not show when the adop- 
tion took place, but where apparently it had taken place before the coming 
into force of the Indian Penal Code, the Court, in declining to recognize the 
adoption, gave reasons which are as applicable to cases before that Act 
came into force as thereafter. 

In a later Bombay case, effect was given to an adoption effected by a 
dying prostitute for the purpose of providing for the performance of her 
funeral ceremonies, and the inheritance of her property. 10 

In cases where a minor under the age of sixteen years has been sold 
or otherwise disposed of, or received with intent that she shall be employed 
or used for the purpose of prostitution (and this generally happens in the 
cases of so-called adoptions by dancing-girls or prostitutes), 11 the disposal 
or reception of the girl is punishable by the Penal Code, 12 and therefore, as 
being prohibited by law, no effect can be given to it by the Court. 13 



1 Totlakara Alluttar Manakal Nar- Mad. dec. of 1856, p. 65. 

rain Nambudripad v. Puvally Manikal 7 Strange's " Manual," para. 99. 

Trivitoama Nambudripad, Mad. S. D. 8 Hencowcr Bye (Doe dem) v. Hans- 

A. 1855, p. 125, referred to in Vasude- cower Bye (1818), 2 Mori. Dig. 133. 

van v. Secretary of State (1887), 11 8 Mathura Na^k^n v. JSsu Naikin 

Mad. 157, at pp. 175, 176. (1880), 4 Bom. 545, followed in Hira 

2 See Manjamma v. Sheshgirirao Naikin v. JKadha Naikin (1912), 37 
(1902), 26 Bom. 491, at p. 495; 4 Bom. 116; 14 Bom. L. K. 1129. See 
Bom. L. B. 116?. See ante, p. 31. Glasiti v. NanU Jan (1893), 20 I. A. 

Act XLV. of 1860, which came 193, at pp. 201, 202 ; 21 Calc. 149, 

into force on the 1st of May, 1861. at p. 156. 

* See Venkatacfattum v. Venkata- 10 Manjammav.S7ie^mrao(lQ02) 9 
swamy, Mad. dec. of 1856, p. 65; 26 Bom. 491, at p. 495; 4 Bom. L. R. 
Venku v. Mahalinga (1888), 11 Mad. 116. 

393 ; Huttukannu v. Paramasami ll See Mathura Naikin v. Esu 

(1888), 12 Mad. 214 ; CJtalakonda Naikin (1880), 4 Bom. 545, at p. 570. 

Alasani v. CMlakonda Ratnachalam ia Act XLV. of 1860, ss. 372, 373. 

(1864), 2 Mad. H. C. 56 ; Steele, 185, See Queen- Empress v. JRama^na (1889), 

186 ; Strange's " Manual," paras. 98, 12 Mad. 273. 

99. 1S Sanjivi v. JalajaksM (1899), 21 

* Vmfai v. Mahalinga (1888), 11 Mad. 229; Kamalafohi v. Ramasami 

MuUukamu, v. Paramo- CJiM (1895), 19 Mad. 127 r see 

(188% 1& Had. 314. Manjamma v. Bheshgirwao 

v. V&tkataswawst* 20 Bom. 491 ; 4 Bom, I* & 



164 



DISPUTES, 



[CHAP, in. 



Suits in which 

adoption f 
arises. 



to ili spirt 

adoption. 
Adoption by 



In Venkti v, Mahalinga, 1 Muttusami Ayyar, J., said, "We may set 
aside or decline to enforce a contract or disposition which has for its imme- 
diate object the prostitution of a minor during her minority so as to leave 
her no choice of married life when she is over sixteen years. The policy 
of the Penal Code, as it seems to me, is not to obliterate altogether the line 
of distinction between the province of ethics and that of law, but to protect 
the chastity of minors and to assure to them the freedom of choosing married 
life when they attain their age, whether they are the natural or adopted 
daughters of dancing women, and to leave otherwise the incidents of their 
legal status as daughters untouched, whether the parties concerned are 
dancing women or ordinary Hindus." 

Effect was given to an adoption by a prostitute dancing-girl in Nara- 
sanna v. Gangu.- 

DISPUTES AS TO ADOPTION. 

A question as to the factum or validity of an adoption 
would arise in a suit or other proceeding in vhich the alleged 
adopted son is asserting his title as such, or in a suit brought 
against him for the purpose of disputing his title as an adopted 
son, or in a suit to recover property held by him by virtue of 
such alleged title, or in a suit for the purpose of preventing him 
from acting as adopted son. 3 

An alleged adoption may be disputed by any person whose 



interests are prejudicially affected by it. 4 

A suit to declare the invalidity of an adoption by a widow 
can only, as a general rule, be brought by the presumptive 
reversionary heir, 5 Such a suit may be brought by a more 
distant reversioner, if those nearer in succession are in collusion 
with the widow or have precluded themselves from interfering, 6 



* (1888), 11 Mad. 303, at p. 402, 
differed from in Hira Naikin v. 
EadU Naikin (1912), 37 Bom. 116, 
at p. 120 j 14 Bom. L. B. 1129, at 
P- 1133. 

a (1889), 13 Mad. 133. 

8 In Kalova v. Padapa Valad hu- 
javgrav (1876), 1 Bom. 248, it was 
held that a suit would lie to obtain 
an injunction restraining a person 
from performing the Skraddh or 
other ceremonies as an adopted son, 
or assuming the status of such 
adopted son. 

* See Specific Belief Act (I. of 
1877), s. 42, post, p. 165; Ramhshore 
Kedqmatk v* Jainarayan Ramrachpal 
(1913}, 40 1 A. 213, at p. 221 ; 40 
Calc.966, at p. 980 ; 17 a W. 1ST* 1189, 



at p. 1194 ; 15 Bom. L. B. 867, at p. 
875. 

fi Thaloorain Sahiba v. Mohun Loll 
(1867), 11 M. LA. 386,- 7W. B. P. C. 
25. See Specific Belief Act (I. of 
1877), s. 42, illus., post, p. 106, and 
cases, post, note 6. 

6 Anund Koer (Earn) v. Court of 
Wards (1880), 8 L A. 14, at pp. 22, 
23 ; 8 Calc. 764, at pp. 772, 773 ; 8 
C. L. B. 381, at pp. 385, 386 ; fta- 
mabaiv. Rangrav (1894), 19 Bom. 614; 
Bhika.fi Apaji v. Jagannaih Vtthal 
(1873), 10 Bom. H. C. 351 ; Brojo 
Kishoree Dassee v. Sreenath Bow 
(1868), 9 W, B. C. B. 463; Tamni 
Charan GliowdJiry v, Saroda Sundari 
Lasi (1869), 3 B. L. B. A. C. 145, at 
p. 157 \ 11 W, B. C. B. 468, at p. 470. 



CHAP. III.] SUIT. 165 

or refuse, without sufficient cause, to take stops, 1 or where 
the next reversioner has only a limited estate, 2 but not 
otherwise. 3 

The nearer reversioner would apparently be a necessary party defendant 
to a suit brought by a more distant reversioner. 4 

In case of an adoption by the husband the widow or other Adoption i>y 
heir may sue, at any rate after the death of the adoptive father, father/ 6 
If the parties are governed by the Mitakshara law the co- 
parceners may apparently sue at any time. 

In case of the widow, or other limited heir, 3 colluding, or being precluded 
from interfering, the presumptive reversionary heir may sue, and possibly 
in case such presumptive reversionary heir is also colluding, a more distant 
reversioner may sue. 

Except in a case where he is estopped from so doing, 6 a suit seeking Suit by 
to declare an alleged adoption to be invalid may be brought by the person ad P ter - 
making the adoption* 7 

A declaratory decree will not be made as of right. Sec. 42 Declaratory 
of the Specific Belief Act is as follows : decro * 

" Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right Discretion of 

, , i i i j i Court as t'o 

as to any property, may institute a suit against any person declarations of 
denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character O f status or right, 
right, and the Court may, in its discretion, make therein a 
declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not, in 
such suit, ask for any further relief. 

"Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration Bar to such 
whoro tho plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a more 
declaration of title, omits to do so." 



v. Hamalak- 6 Such as a daughter. 
ahmamma (1894), 18 Mad 53. G Post, p. 172. 

2 Of, AbinasJi Chandra Mazumdar 7 As, for instance, whoro the adop- 

v, Harinath SKdha (1904), 32 Calc, tor has been induced to adopt by 

02 ; 90. W. N. 25. misrepresentation or coercion (ante, 

See Anyaba v. Daji (1895), 20 p. 152. 

Bora. 202 ; Gyanendro Nath Roy v. 8 I. of 1877, The right to bring 

Lobongomunjori DaU (1882), 11 C. L. a suit to declare an adoption to be 

B, 198. invalid independently of a claim to 

* gee Anund Koer (Rani) v. Court property has been incidentally recog- 

of Wards (1880), 8 I. A. 14, at p. 23 ; nized by tho Legislature, see Court 

Oalo. 764, at p. 772 ; 8 C. L. B. Fees Act (VII of 1870, s. 2, art. 17, 

381, at pp. 385, 386; Qurulinga- cl 5) and Limitation Acts (IX. of 

mami v. Ramalakehmamma (1894), 1871, Schcd. II., art. 129; XV. of 

18 MadL 53, at p. 58; Ramabai v. 1877, Sched. II., art. 118; IX of 

ftangrav (1804), 10 Bom. 014. 1908, Schcd. I, art. 118). 



166 SUIT. [OEAP, III. 

Explanation. A trustee of property irf a person interested 
to deny a titlu adverse to tho title of some one who is not in 
existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee. 

Illustration. 

A Hindu widow in possession of property adopts a son to licr deceased 
husband* The person presumptively entitled to possession of tho property 
on her death without a son may, in a suit against the adopted son, obtain 
a declaration that the adoption was invalid. 1 

Suit to rioter- It is unsettled whether, in exercise of the discretion given 
tak?ta*iopi to it by the Specific Relief Act, 2 the Court can determine a 
right to take in adoption before the adoption has taken place. 

The High Court of Bengal has held in an unreported case that a suit 
will lie for a declaration that a permission set up by a widow is false. 3 
The same Court decided in a case under the law before the Specific Belief 
Act came into force that such suit will not lie, 4 relying on the decision of 
the Judicial Committee in Sree Narain Hitter v. Kishen Soondory Dassee 
(Sremutty) 9 * but in the last-named case the suit was merely to set aside 
certain deeds of gift and acceptance in adoption, under which the defendant 
took no interest. It may in many cases be desirable that the question 
should be determined in order to save the parties expense, to save tho boy 
from the peril of his adoption being declared invalid, and to save the estate 
from the expense of maintaining the boy if the adoption be declared invalid. 6 
On the other hand, the boy would not be generally bound by the decree, 
as unless -the adoption of a particular boy were contemplated, he could 
not be made a party to the suit. 

It would be difficult to stretch the terms of s. 42 of the Specific Belief 
Act (I. of 1877) to permit a suit of this kind being successful. 

injunction. There seems to have been no case in which an injunction 

has been granted to restrain the performance of an adoption, 7 
but provided the application be made in due time, and there be 

1 For an instance of such declara- (1856), Boul. 137; Pearee Doyee 
tion before the passing of the Specific (Mussamut) v. Hurbunsee, Kooer 
Relief Act, see Kotamarti Sitammayya (Mu&samut) (1873), 19 W. B C R 
v.Koiamarti Vandfarnmam (1874), 127; Suludra CTiowdrayn (Mwsa- 
7 Mad. H. C. 351. ma ut) v. Goluknafh CJiowdliry (1843) 

2 a 42 above. 7 Ben. Sol. R. 143 (new edition, 166)! 
8 Bajyutty Aom (Mussummat) v. * (1873 ) f L A $ y ol UQ . ' 

OTgofelf (JfwMwim*), A. 0. D. 4 of B. L. R 171. & C. ** nomine, Nogen- 

1887, referred to in Sarkar's Law dro Chundro Mitro v. Men Soonderv 

of Adoption," p. 434. Dossee (Sreenwtto), 19 W. R. C R 

* Rvm Ba&adoor Singh v. Lucho 133. " * 

Ooowr (Jterf.) (1879), 4 C. L. R. See puf, pp. 202-204. 

270), Sea afco A^ooomoree Donee * See Assur Purskotam v. Ratanbai 

, ^^ocoomar MulUck (1888), 13 Bora. 56. 



CHAP. III.] BER JUDICATA, 167 

no objection on the merits, there seems no reason why a Court 
should not be justified in issuing such injunction. 1 

There is authority that an interim injunction will not be granted to 
restrain the carrying out of an adoption. 8 

The Courts will not decree specific performance of an agree- Specific per- 
rnent to give or take in adoption, 3 but the breach of such 
agreement would apparently give a right to damages. 4 

A decision as to the factum or validity of an adoption will Kes 
only bind the persons who are parties to such decision and 
those claiming under them. 5 

Thus a decision in a probate proceeding, upholding a will which pro- 
hibited adoption was held to prevent a suit to uphold an adoption, the parties 
being the same, 6 but where the parties are different, the decision in the 
probate proceeding does not operate as res judicata,, although the question 
of adoption may have been incidentally decided in such proceeding. 7 

It is unsettled whether a decision as to the fact, or the validity of an 
adoption in a suit between the alleged adopted son and a person who is, 
during the lifetime of the widow, the then immediate reversioner, will 
bind another person who may succeed to the reversion. 8 The Madras 
High Court has held that he is bound, 9 but this is not in accordance with 
the views of the other High Courts. See Venkatarayatm Pillayv Subbammcd 
(1915), 42 1. A. 125 ; 38 Mad. 406 ; 19 C. W. N. 461 ; 17 Bom. L. R 468. 

When the question is decided, after the death of the widow, in a suit 
between the adopted son and the person who would in the absence of the 
adopter be entitled to the reversion after her death, such decision would 
bind all persons subsequently interested in the estate as that person 
represents the reversion. 

1 See Specific Relief Act (I. " of tion was loft undecided in Brojo- 
1877), s. 54. hshoree Dassee v. Sreenath Bose 

2 See Assur PursMam v. Rataribai (1868), 9 W. R. 0. R. 463, and 
(1888), 13 Bom. 56 ; Atrani (Ben) v. in Jumoona Dassya Chowdhrani v. 
Deep Sing Baria ThaJcor (1915), 40 Bamasoonderai Dassya Chowdhram 
Bom. 86 ; 17 Bom. L. R. 1097. (1876), 3 I. A. 72, at p. 84 ; 1 Cala 

a Specific Relief Act (L of 1877), 289, at p. 296 ; 25 W. R. 0. R. 235, 

s . 216. at p. 239. The fact that a previous 

* See Sree Narain Hitter v. Kislien suit by a reversioner has been unsuc- 

Soondoree Dossee (1873), I. A. Sup. cessful may be a reason for refusing 

Vol. 149, at p. 160 ; 11 B. L. R. 171, a mere declaratory decree (see ante, 

at p. 188. PP* 165, 166) at the suit of another re- 

5 See Civil Procedure Code (Act V. versioner. The idea that a decision in 
of 1908), s. 11. a question of adoption had the effect 

6 Brendon v. Sundarabai (1913), of a judgment in rem was disposed 
38 Bom. 272 ; 16 Bom. L. R. 161. of in Kanfya Latt v. Eadha Churn 

v Dulhin Oenda v. Harnandan Pra- (1867), B. L. R. F, B. R. 662 ; 7 W. 

shad Singh (1916), P. C. 20 C. W. N. R. 0. R. 338. The matter is now 

617. dealt with by the Evidence Act (I. of 

8 *See Bhagwanta v. Sulchi (1899), 1872), s, 43. 

22 AIL 33; Ohhiddu Singh v. Durga 9 Chiruvolu Punnammav. Chiwvolu 

Dai (1900), 22 All 382. This ques- Perrazu (1906), 29 Mad. 390. 



168 LIMITATION. [OHAP. III. 

A decision in a litigation which has been lond fide instituted and con- 
ducted between the alleged adopted son and the widow in whom the 
property was vested would, in the case where the adoption was alleged 
to be made by the widow's husband, bind the reversioners. Probably it 
would also have the same effect where the adoption is said to have been 
made by the widow, 1 but she denies it. 

A decision against one person claiming to be an adopted son would 
not bind another person claiming under another act of adoption 3 

Under the Specific Belief Act, 3 a declaration is only binding on the 
parties to the suit, persons claiming through them respectively, and where 
any of the parties are trustees, on the persons for whom, if in existence at 
the date of the declaration, such parties would be trustees. As these 
expressions do not include the case of a subsequent reversioner, it seems 
clear that a declaration, or the refusal to grant one, in a suit by one rever- 
sioner does not bind another reversioner. 

On the death of a presumptive reversioner during the pendency of a 
, suit or appeal by him to declare an adoption invalid, the right of suit or 
appeal devolves upon a surviving reversioner. 4 

Limitation of A suit " to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption 

suit to declare .... - , or 

adoption is invalid, or never, in fact, took place," must be brought 
\vithin " six years " from the time " when the alleged adoption 
becomes known to the plaintiff." 5 

This provision is confined to declaratory suits, and does not, 
it is submitted, alter the limitation for suits for possession of 
property. 6 

There is a conflict of authority as to whether the effect of this pro- 
vision is to bar suits for possession of property against a person holding 
under an alleged adoption which are brought more than six years after 
the alleged adoption becomes known to the plaintiff, or whether it is confined 

1 Sec Katama Natchiar v. Rajah of plaintiff derives his right to sue," s. 3. 
Shivagunga (1864), 9 M. I. A. 543, afc Ayyadon Pillai v. Sofat Ammal (1901), 
p. 608; 2 W. R. P. C. 31, at p. 37. 24 Mad. 405. 

This was the view of the majority of 6 Tirbhuwan Bahadur Singh (Tha- 

the Court in Risal Singh v. Balwant lew) v. Bameshar Baksh Singh (Raja) 

Singh (1915), 37 All. 490. (1900), 33 I. A. 156 ; 28 All. 727 ; 10 

2 See Anundmoyee Chowdhoorayan C. W. N. 1065 ; 8 Bom. L. R. 722 ; 
(Mussumauth) v. Sheet Chunder Roy Muhammad V 'mar Khan v. Muhammad 
(1862), 9 M I. A. 291, at p. 306; 2 Niaz-ud-din Khan (1911), 39 I. A 19- 
W. R. P. C. 19, at p. 21 ; Marsh, 16 C. W. N. 458 ; 14 Bom. L. R. 182 ' 
455, at p. 460. Velaga Mangamma v. Bandlamudi 

3 I. of 1877, s. 43. Veeruyya (1907), 30 Mad. 308. See 
* Vetikatamrayam, Pilkty v. Sub- Chunm Lai v. Setaram (1911) 34 

bammal (1915), 42 L A. 125; 38 Mad. AIL 8. Limitation would run from 

406 ; 19 a W. KT. 641 ; 17 Bom. L. the death of the widow who purports 

& 46& to adopt, see Bhagioat Pershad v. 

5 Act IX. of 1908, Sched, L, art. Murari Lall (1910), 15 0. W. N. 524, 

118. 3PWntia' includes also any post, p. 500. 
person from or through whom a 



CHAP. III.] LIMITATION, 

to cases where a declaration only can bo obtained, and there is no present 
right to substantive relief. 1 

The Madras 2 and Bombay 3 High Courts held that it has the 
former effect, but in Calcutta* and Allahabad 5 a contrary view 
has been expressed. . . 

The Madras decision was based upon two judgments of the Judicial 
Committee G with reference to the construction of Act 129 of the -nd 
Schedule of an earlier Limitation Act (IX. of 1871). That article provided 
a limitation for suits to tk set aside an adoption," and was held to be equally 
applicable to suits seeking a mere declaration that the adoption was invalid, 
and to suits which sought the possession of property held under colour of 
an alleged adoption. Although the phraseology of that article differs from 
that of the article now in force, which in terms contemplates only a declara- 
tory suit,' there are observations of the Judicial Committee winch were 
held to be equally applicable to the present law. 8 This rule of limitation 
had no application to a case where the proceeding or document is on its 
face no obstacle to the title of the heir, as, for instance, where a woman 
adopts to herself and not to her husband. 8 

The Madras High Court now takes a different view having regard to 
the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of TirWmwan Bahadur 



1 As where the widow is alive, 
and the reversioner seeks to have it 
declared that the adoption made by 
her is not valid. See Specific Relief 
Act (I. of 1877), s. 42, ante, pp. 165, 
1 66. This question was raised, but not 
determined, in Luchmun Lai Chow- 
dhry v. Kanhya Lai Mowar (1894), 
22 I. A. 51 ; 22 Calc. 609. 

8 Parvathi Ammal v. Saminatha 
GuruJcal (1896), 20 Mad. 40. Cf. 
Ratnamasari v. Akilandammal (1902), 
26 Mad. 291. 

* Shrinivas Sarjerav v. Balwant 
VenJcatesh (1913), 37 Bom. 513 ; 15 
Bom. L. R. 533 ; Shrinivas Murar v. 
Hanmant Chavdo Deshapande (1899), 
24 Bom. 260, overruling HarilalPranlal 
v, Bai Rewa (1895), 21 Bom. 376 ; 
Fannyamma v. Manjaya Hebbar 
(1895), 21 Bom. 159, and Padajirav 
v. Ramrav (1888), 13 Bom. 160, 
which last case was decided under 
Art. 119 of the Schedule (post, p.^ 
170) Ramcliandra Vinayak Kullarni 
v. Narayan Baba 3 i (1903), 27 Bom. 
614; Baiot Naran v. Barot Jesang 
(1900), 25 Bom. 26. 

* Ram Chandra Mukerje& v. Manpt 
Singh (1899), 27 Calc. 242, at pp. 
253-255 ; 4 C. W. N. 405, at pp. 411- 
413 ; ParWu Lai (Lola) v. Mylne 
(1887), 14 Calc. 401; Baikania 



Chandra Roy Chowdhury v. Kali Cha- 
ran Roy Clwwdhury (1904), 9 C. W. 
N. 222. Cf. fagannath Prasad Gupta 
v. JEwnftf Singh (1897), 25 Calc. 354. 

* Lali v. Murlidhar (1901), 24 All. 
195; Natthu Singh v. OuUb Singh 
(1895), 17 AIL 167; Basdeo v. Oopal 
(1886), 8 All. 644; Oanga Sahai v. 
Lekhraj Singh (1886), 9 All. 253, at 
pp 267-269. Contrd Inda v. Jchan- 
gira, All. Weekly Notes, 1890, p. 
24L 

6 Jagadamba Ghovxlhrani v. Dal"- 
Una Mohun (1886), 13 I. A. 84; 13 
Calc. 308 ; Mohesh Narain Moonshee 
v. Taruck Nath Moitra (1892), 20 I. 
A. 30 ; 20 Calc. 487. 

7 Cf. Art. 119, which also speaks 
of a suit for a declaration, but ap- 
parently contemplates substantive 
relief on the ground of the plaintiff's 
rights being interfered with. 

* Jagadamba Chowdhram v. Dakhina 
Mohun (1886), 13 I. A. 84, at p. 95; 
13 Calc. 308, at pp. 320, 321. 

9 Raj Bahadoor Singh v. AcJuunbit 
Lai (1879), 6 I. A. 110 ; 6 C. L. R. 
12 ; Luchmun Lai Chowdhry v. Kan- 
hya Lai Mowar (1894), 22 I. A. 15 ; 
22 Calc. 609. 

10 Velaga, Maiigamma v. Bamta- 
Veerawa (1907), 30 Mad. 108. 



170 



ELECTION, 



[CHAP. in. 



Adverse 
possession. 



Singh (TMkw) v. Eameshar BaJcsh Singh (Raja), 1 but the Bombay High 
Court maintains its original view. 2 

If the right of the nearest reversioner for the time being to contest an 
adoption by the widow is allowed to become barred by limitation as against 
him, this will not bar the similar rights of the subsequent reversioners, 3 

Tho right to bring such suit would bo barred where the 
person claiming under an alleged adoption has held the property 
for more than twelve years adversely to the widow of his 
adoptive father 4 or to the plaintiff. 

Limitation of A suit " to obtain a declaration that an adoption is valid " 
adoption 60 ar must be brought within " six years " from the time " when the 
vulld * rights of the adopted son, as such, 5 are interfered with." 6 

It has been held by the High Court's of Bengal 7 and the North- West 
Provinces 8 that this article does not prevent a suit for possession by a 
person claiming as an adopted son, even though it be brought more than 
six years after his rights have been interfered with. This view is, it is 
submitted, correct. 9 A different view has been accepted in Bombay. 10 
In Madras the High Court has differed on this question. 11 The section 
clearly does not bar a suit in which the plaintiff claims to succeed inde- 
pendently of the alleged adoption. 12 

Where time has begun to run before the adoption as in the case of the 
widow being dispossessed, the adopted son may be barred by adverse 
possession, 13 but in a suit claiming property alienated by the widow before 
the adoption, time does not begin to run before the adoption. 14 

Election. Where a person, entitled to dispute an adoption, is bene- 

fited in the same character by a will, or other disposition of 



Adverse 
possession. 



1 (1906), 33 I. A. 156; 28 All 727; 
10 a W. JST. 1065 ; 8 Bom. L. R. 722. 

2 Shrinivas Sarjerav v. Balwant 
Venkatesh (1913), 37 Bom. 513 ; 15 
Bom. L. R. 583. 

3 Bhagwanta v. SukU (1899), 22 
All. 33. Of. Abinash Chandra Ma* 
zumdar v. Harinath Shaha (1904), 32 
Calc. 62 ;~9 C. W. JST. 25. See ante, 
p. 168. 

* Act IX. of 1908, Sched L, art. 
144; Ghandarap Singh v. Lachman 
S^M 1888), 10 All. 485. 

5 See Qangabai v. Tardhai (1902), 
26 Bom. 720. 

6 Act IX of 1908, Sched. L, art. 
119. 

7 Jagamath Prasad Gupta v. 
Runjti 8i<ngh (1897), 25 Calc. 354. 

* o& v. MwUMwr (1901), 24 
All. 195; (& a on, appeal (1901) 



33 I. A. 97 ; 28 All. 488 ; 10 C. W. N. 
130 ; 8 Bom. L. R. 402) ; CJiandaniav. 
Saligram (1903), 26 All. 40. 

9 See ante, pp. 168, 169. 

10 See SJinnwas Murar v. Hanmant 
Chavdo Deshapande (1899), 24 Bom. 
260, differing from Padctjirav v. Ram- 
rav (1888), 13 Bom. 160; Laxmana 
v. Mamappa (1907), 32 Bom. 7; 9 
Bom. L. R. 1054 ; Shnnivas Sarjerav 
v. Balwant Vtnkatesh (1915), 37 Bom. 
513 ; 15 Bom. L R. 583. 

11 Ratnamasari v. AMlandammal 
(1902), 26 Mad. 291. 

12 See Gangabai v. Tarahai (1902), 
26 Bom. 720. 

13 Oobind Chandra Sarma Mazoom- 
dar v. Anand Mohan Sarma Ma- 
zoomdar (1869), 2 B. L. R. A. C. 313. 

14 Mora Narayan Joshi v. Balaji 
Raghunatb (1894), 19 Bom. 809. 



CHAP, III.] 



BURDEN OF PROOF, 



171 



property, which benefits the person adopted, he must elect 
whether to take under the will, or other disposition, or against it. 

"A principle not peculiar to English law, but common to all law, 
which is based on the rules of justice, namely . . . that a party shall not, 
at the same time, affirm and disaffirm the same transaction affirm it 
as far as it is for his benefit, and disaffirm it as far as it is to his prejudice." x 

A person, whose title depends upon an adoption, must, in Burden of 
a contest between him and the person who would succeed in pr ' 
the absence of such adoption, prove the fact of the adoption, 2 
the performance of the ceremonies 3 (if any) which may be 
necessary, 4 and such facts as are necessary to establish its 
validity. 5 If the adoption was by a widow, who could not 
adopt without permission, he must prove the fact of such 
permission having been given, 

The burden of proving the adoption is on the person alleging 



1 Rungama v. Atchama (1846), 4 
M. I. A. 1, at p. 103 ; 7 W. E. (P. C.), 
57, at p. 62. Sec Act X. of 1865, 
ss. 167-177, applied to certain Hindu 
wills by Act XXL of 1870, s. 2. 

2 Soo Indian Evidence Act (I. of 
1872), ss. 101-103 ; Sootroogun Suk- 
pulty v. Sdbitra Dye (1834), 2 Knapp, 
287 ; 6 W. E. P. C. 109 ; Chowdry 
Pudum Singh v. Koer Oodey Singh 
(1869), 12 M. I. A. 350, at pp. 356, 
357 ; 2 B. L. E. (P. C.), 101, at p. 
104 ; 12 W. E. P. C. 1, at pp. 2, 3 ; 
Jwhori Lai v, Chunni Lai (1908), 36 
I. A. 9 ; 31 All. 116 ; 13 C W. N. 
370; 11 Bom. L. E. 196; Lai 
Kunwar (Musammat) v. Ghiranji Lai 
(1909), 37 L A. 1 ; 14 C. W. N. 285 ; 
12 Bom. L. E. 244 ; Ramprotab Misser 
v. Mhilak Mmer (1878), 3 0. L. E. 
170, at p. 174 ; ttur Dyal Nag v. 
Roy KrisUo Bhoomick (1875), 24 
W. E. 0. E. 107 ; Tarini Charan 
Chowdhry v. Saroda Sundari Dasi 
(1869), 3 B. L. E. (A. C.) 145, at 
pp. 158, 159, 11 W. E. C. E. 468, at 
p. 474 ; liwsessw Chuckcrbutty v. 
Jto Joy Mojoomdar (1865), 2 W. E, 
0. E. 326, at p. 328 ; Roopmonjooree 
Chowdranec v. Ramlall S^rcar (1864), 
1 W* E, C. E. 145, at p, 147 ; Ken- 
chawa v. Ningupa (1867), 10 Bom, 
H. 0, 265, note. 

8 Qmraoflingh (Thakoor) v, Mritab 



Koonwer (Thalcooranee) (1868), 3 Agra, 
103A. 

4 See ante, pp. 149, 153-155. 

5 Oomrao Singh (Thakoor) v. Meh- 
tal Koonwer (ThaJcoorante) (1868), 
3 Agra, 103A. In Mango Balaji v. 
MvMeyppa (1898), 23 Bom. 296, at 
p. 303, it was held that the person 
setting up an adoption was required 
to establish the death of tho natural 
son of his adoptive father at the timo 
of the adoption. 

Chowdry Pudum Singh v. Kocr 
Oodey Singh (l'869), 12 M. I. A. 
350, at p. 356 ; 2 B L. E. (P. C.) 
101, at p. 104 ; 12 W. E. (P, C.), 1, 
at pp. 2, 3 ; liar ShanJcar Pariah 
Singh v. Lai Raghuraj Singh (1907), 
34 I. A. 125 ; 29 All. 519; 11 C. W. N. 
841 ; Kishori Lai v. Chunni Lai 
(1908), 36 L A. 9 ; 31 AIL 116 ; 13 
C. W. N. 370; 11 Bom. L. E. 196; 
Hur Dyal Nag v. Roy Krixhto Bhooimck 
(1875), 24 W. E. C. E. 107 ; Tanni 
Cliaran Chowdhry v. Saroda Sundari 
Dasi (1869), 3 B. L. E. (A. C.) 145, 
at pp. 158, 159 ; 11 W. E. C. E. 468, 
at p. 474 ; Kripa Moyee. Delia v. 
Qoluck Chunder Roy (1865), 4 W- E. 
0. E, 78 ; Roopmonjooree Chowdrance 
v. Ramlall Sircar (1864), 1 W. 
E. C. E. 145, at p. 147; Oomrao 
Singh (Thakoor) v. Mehtab Koonwer 
(Thalcooranw) (1868), 3 Agra, 103A. 



172 ESTOPPEL [CHAP. in. 

it, in tlio unusual ease of tho adoption being denied by the 
person alleged to be adopted. 1 

Where the plaintiff claims property as heir, and is unable to establish 
his relationship, it is unnecessary for the defendant to prove his adoption. 2 

In certain summary proceedings a de facto adoption might be acted upon 
until set aside in a properly constituted suit. 3 

Where the fact of the adoption , Vas admitted, and it was alleged that 
the natural father had lost his right to give in adoption, it was held tho 
burden of proving such loss is upon the persons alleging it. 4 

There is authority that in a suit which merely seeks to declare 
an alleged adoption to be invalid the burden of proof is upon 
the person seeking to obtain such declaration, 5 but there is also 
authority to the contrary. 6 It Is submitted that the latter view is 
correct. 

Estoppel, A person, who is otherwise entitled to dispute an adoption, 

may be estopped from disputing it, although the same adoption 
may be liable to be disputed by other persons who are not so 
estopped. Estoppel operates merely as a personal disqualifi- 
cation, and does not otherwise affect the validity of the 
adoption. 7 

Evidence Act, The Indian Evidence Act,* s. 115, enacted as follows : 
s * 115 ' " Where one person has, by his declaration, act, or omission, 

intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a 
thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, 9 neither he nor his 
representative 10 shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding 
between himself and such person or his representative, to deny 
tho truth of that thing." 

1 Chandra Kunwar (Rani) v. Nar- (1908), 30 All. 197 ; Brojo Ki&Jioree 
prtl Singh (Ohaitdkri) (1906), 34 I. A. Dassee v. Sreenath Bose (1868), 9 
27; 29 All. 184; 11 C. W N. 321 ; W. R. C. B. 463, at p. 467; Gooroo 
Ear Shankar Partab SingJi v. Lai Prosunno Singli v. Nil Madhub Singh 
Raglmraj Singh (1907), 34 I A. 125; (1873), 21 W. B. C B. 84. See ante, 
2D All 519; H W N 841. pp. 165, 166. 

2 Kalilislwe Dvii Gupta Mozoom* 6 Rajagopala Reddy v. Nattu Go- 
dar v. Bhusan Chunder (1890), 18 vinda Reddy (1910), 34 Mad 329. 
Gale 201. 7 See Parvatibayamma v. Rama- 

3 See Nunkoo Singh v. Purm Dhun knshna Rau (1894), 18 Mad. 145, at 
Stngh (1869), 12 W. E. 0. B, 356, p. 146 

which was a case under the Certifi- 8 Act I. of 1872. 

cato Act (XXVII. of 1860). See 9 Yashvant Puttu Shenvi v. Rod- 

Ramprotab Misser v. AbMak Misser habai (1889), 14 Bom. 312. 

(1878), 3 C. L. E. 170, at p. 173. 10 This would not include an 

* Kuwm Kumari Roy v. Satya auction purchaser at a sale of pro- 

Ranfan DQ& (1903), 30 Calc. 999; perty belonging to tho person cs- 

7 C. W. 3ST. 784. topped : Parbhu Lai (Lola) v. Mylne 

6 Atfarfi 1 Knnmr ?. Rup CTiand (1887), 14 Calc. 401. 



CHAP. III.] 



ESTOPPEL. 



173 



For instance, a widow representing to the natural i'ather that she had 
a power to adopt, and thereby inducing him to give his son in adoption, 
would be estopped from thereafter denying the power. 1 

Allowing the thread ceremony and marriage to be performed in the 
adoptive family, and otherwise allowing the youth to act as an adopted 
son, would amount to an estoppel. 3 

Active participation in the adoption may also operate as ap. estoppel. 3 

A person may be so estopped, although he was acting in. good faith, Good faith. 
or without a full knowledge of the circumstances, or was under a mistake 
or misapprehension. 4 

The person taking in adoption would generally, in the absence of fraud 
or coercion, be estopped from denying the adoption, 5 but where there has 
been no mis-statement, 6 or conduct equivalent thereto, or where the mis- 
statement has not been acted upon, 7 there can be no estoppel. 

A person is not estopped from denying an adoption merely because 
he had previously secured succession to properties by setting up that 
adoption, when it appears that his claim as adopted son was not opposed 
by the person as against whom he is said to be estopped. 8 

The acts of a Hindu female, who " is acting without the guidance of 
a disinterested adviser, cannot prejudice her." 

The misrepresentation to operate as an estoppel must apparently be Matters of law, 
of a matter of fact. An erroneous expression of opinion that an adoption 
was valid in law could not apparently lead to an estoppel, nor could a 
person be estopped from asserting the state of the law. 10 



1 Kannammal v. Virasami (1892), 
15 Mad. 486; Dharam Kunwar (Rani) 
v. Balwant Singh (1912), 39 1. A. 142 ; 
34 All. 398 ; 16 C. W. N. 675 ; 14 Bom. 
Iu R. 485. 

2 Santappayya v. Rangappayya 
(1894), 18 Mad. 397 ; Dharam Kunwar 
(Ram) v. Balwant Singh (1912), 39 I. 
A. 142 ; 34 All. 398 ; 16 0. W. N. 
675 ; 14 Bom. L. R. 485 ; S. C. m 
Court below (1908), 30 All 549. 

3 Sadashiv Moreshvar Ohate v. Hari 
MoreshvarGTiate^Wty, 11 Bom. H. C. 
190 ; Vyas Chimanlal v. Vyas Ram- 
cliandra (1899), 24 Bom. 473, at p. 
481 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 163 ; Ohintu v. 
Dhondu, 11 Bom. H. C. 192, note. 

4 Sarat Chund&r Dey v. Oopal 
Ohunder Laha (1892), 19 I. A. 203, 
at p. 215; 20 Calc. 296, at p. 310, 
overruling Qanga Sahai v. H ira Singh 
(1880), 2 All. 809, and Vishnu Nam- 
ludri (Eranjoli Illath) v. Krishnan 
Nambudri (Eranjoh Illath) (1883), 7 
Mad. 3, 

5 Soo Dharam Kunwar (Rani) v. 
Balwant Singh (1912), 39 I. A. 142 ; 
JM All. 398 ; 16 0. W. N. 675 ; 14 
Bom. L. R. 485 ; Ravji Vinayakrav 
Jagannath Bbanltwrsett v. Lakshmibai 



(1887), 11 Bom. 381, at p. 396; 
Sukhbasi Lai v. Ouman Singh (1879), 
2 All. 366 ; Chzntu v. Dhondu (1873), 
11 Bom. H. C. p. 192, note; Ohitlco 
Raghunath Rajadiksh v. Janak^ (1874), 
11 Bom H. C. 199 

6 See SurendrakesJiav Roy v. Door- 
gasundari Dassee (1892), 19 I. A. 
108, at p. 128 ; 19 Calc. 513, at p. 
532 ; Tayammaul v. Sashachalla Nai* 
tor (1805), 10 M. I. A. 429, at pp. 
433, 434. 

7 See Kuverji v. Balai (1890), 19 
Bom. 374; Parvatibayamma v. R(t- 
malcrishna Rau (1894), 18 Mad. 145, 
at p. 149. 

8 Har Shankar Partab Singh v. 
Lai Raghuraj Singh (1907), 34 I. A. 
125 ; 29 All. 519 ; 11 C. W. N. 841. 

s Tayammaul v. Sashachalla Natker 
(1865), 10 M. I. A. 429, at p. 433. 
See ante, p. 152, note 10. 

10 See Gopee Lall v. Chundraolce. 
Buhoojee (Mussamat Sree) (1872), I. 
A. Sup. Vol. 131, at p. 133; 11 B. 
L. R. 391, at p. 395 ; 19 W. R. C. R. 
12, at p. 13 ; Kuverji v. Balai (1890), 
19 Bom. 374, at pp. 390, 391. Soo 
Rajnarain Bose v. Universal Life 
Assurance Company (1881), 7 Calc. 594. 



171 PROOF. [OHAP 4 HI. 

In Parmtibayamma v. RamakrisJina JRau, 1 it was laid down on the 
authority of Gopalayyan v. Raghupatiayyan? that " the claimant has to 
show that by a course of conduct long continued on the part of the family 
which has purported to affiliate him, his situation in his original family 
has been altered so that it would be impossible to restore him to it." This 
limitation to the doctrine of estoppel is not, it is submitted, justified by 
the terms of "sec. 115 of the Evidence Act. There seems to have been no 
estoppel in that case, as the representation, if made, was neither believed 
nor acted upon. 

Acquiescence, Mere acquiescence, even presence at the adoption, does not create an 
estoppel, 3 and cannot alter rights unless the acquiescence extends to the 
period provided by the law of limitation. 4 

Mode of proof. The fact of the adoption, and of the power (if any), and of 
the circumstances necessary to establish the validity of the 
adoption, must be proved in the same way as any other fact. 
There are no special rules of evidence applicable. 

The Court must carefully and strictly examine the evidence as to the 
completion of the act of adoption, and as to the facts which are necessary 
to validate it. 5 

Acquiescence by the person entitled to dispute an adoption, or by 
other members of the family, is some evidence of the fact of the adoption. 
Its value as such must depend upon the circumstances. Where it has 
arisen from an imperfect knowledge of the facts it can be of no value. 

A statement as to the existence of the power by the person alleged to 
have given it is evidence in support of it. 7 

As to statements by a person who is dead, or who cannot bo found, 
or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance 
cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under 
the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, when 
these statements relate to the existence of relationship by adoption, see 
the Indian Evidence Act I. of 1872, sec. 32 (5), (6). 

1 (1894), 18 Mad. 145, at p. 148 823 ; Kenchawa v. Ningupa (1867), 
(see also pp. 151, 152). 10 Bom. H. C. 265, note. See Hoop- 

2 (1873), 7 Mad. H. C. 250. monjooree Chowdranee v. Bamlatt 

3 Qurulvngawoami v. JRamalaksh- Sircar (1864), 1 W. R. 0. R. 145; 
mamma (1894) , 18 Mad. 53, at p. 60 ; Sootroogun Sutputhy v. SaMra Dye 
Papammav. Appa Bau (1833), 16 Mad. (1835), 2 Knapp, 287 ; 5 W. R. P. C. 
384, afe p. 391 ; Vaithihngctm Mudali 109 ; Huradhun Mookurfta v. Mu- 
v. Murugaian (1912), 37 Mad. 529. ' thoranath Mookuijia (1849), 4 M. I. 

* Sec Uda Begam v. Imam-nd-dm A. 414, at p. 425 ; 7 W. R. P. C. 71 ; 

(1875), 1 All. 82; Tanicb Chunder Biwokar v. Chandanlal (1916), 44 

BhuttacMrjce v. Hu?ro Sunfair Calc, 201 ; 21 C. W. N. 314 ; 18 Bom. 

Sandyal (1874), 22 W. R. C. R 267 j L. R. 992. 

Aajan v. Basuva Chttti (1865), 2 6 See Rungama v. Atchama (1846), 

Mad. H C. 428 ; Ra,tn <nt v. Raja 4 M, I. A. 1, at p. 103 ; 7 W. R. P. C. 

$<M (1864), 2 Mad. H. C. 114 ; Pe&da- 57, at p. 62. Seo Act I. of 1872, s. 50. 

mutfadaty v. JV. Timma, Rcddy (1S64), 7 Indian Evidence Act (I. of 1872), 

2 Mad. H. C. 270. ss. 21, 32 (5), Kishen Sunkcr Dutt v. 

6 Imrit Konwur v. jRoop Narain Moha Mya Dos&ee 9 W. R. 1864, C. It.* 

Singh (1880), 6 0. L. R. 76, at p. 210. 



CHAP, in.] 



PEOOF. 



175 



A statement amounting to an admission by the person alleged to have 
been adopted will be evidence against him requiring explanation. 1 

An ancient report of a panchayet as to the pedigree of a family has been 
held to establish an adoption which was not then disputed. 2 

A tradition in a wajib-ul-arz has been acted upon by the Judicial 
Committee. 3 

" It may be desirable carefully to examine cases of possible fraud, 
yet ... instruments which are proved by all the attesting witnesses, 
and against which there is no evidence on the other side, ought not to be 
set aside and treated as nothing, on a mere suspicion of perjury and 
forgery." * 

After such a lapse of time as makes it impossible, or difficult, to obtain 
direct evidence of the adoption, or of the performance of the necessary 
ceremonies, or of the giving of the necessary permission, evidence of 
recognition by the adoptive parents, or by other members of the family, 
or of treatment as an adopted son by permitting him to perform the family 
worship, or to share in the inheritance, or otherwise, may be sufficient to 
establish an adoption, or, at any rate, to render slight evidence sufficient, 5 
and in any case will, it is submitted, be admissible in support of the adoption, 8 



1 See Chandra Kunwar (Rani] v. 
Narpat Singh (CJiaudhn) (1900), 34 
I. A. 27; 29 AIL 184; 11 C. W. N. 
320 ; 9 Bom. L. B. 267. 

2 Ajabsing v. Nanabhau Valad 
Dhansing Raul (1898), 26 I. A. 48 ; 
3 C. W. N. 130. 

8 Achal Ram (Lai) v. Kazim 
Husa^n Klian (Raja) (1905), 32 I. A. 
113 ; 27 All. 271 ; 9 C. W. N. 477. 

* Kahchandra Chowdhry v. 8Jiib- 
Chandra Bhaduri (1870), 6 B. L. B. 
501, at p. 508 ; 15 W. B. P. C. 12, at 
p. 14. See Chundernath Roy (RajaJt,) 
v. Gdbin&nafli Roy (Kooar) (1872), 11 
B. L. E. 86, at p. 98 ; 18 W. B. 221, 
at pp. 222, 223. 

6 See Rup Narain v. Gopal Devi 
(Mussamat) (1909), 36 L A. 103; 
36 Gale. 780 ; 13 C. W N. 920 ; 11 
Bom. L. B. 833; Rajendro NatJi 
Holdar v. Jogendro Nath Banerjee 
(1871), 14 M. I. A. 67, at pp. 76, 77 ; 
7 B. L. B. 216, at pp. 227, 228 ; 15 
W. B. P. 0. 41, at pp. 44, 45 ; Run- 
gama v. Atchama (1846), 4 M. I. A. 1, 
at p. 105 ; 7 W. B. P. C. 57, at p, 62 ; 
Vyas Chimanlal v. Vyas Ramchandra 
(1899), 24 Bom. 473 ; 2 Bom. L. B. 
163 ; Ramalinga Pillai v. Sadasiva 
Pillai (1864), 9 M. I. A. 510, at p. 519; 
1 W. B. P. C. 25, at p. 26 ; Anandrav 
Biwji v. Oanesh Eshwnt Botel (1863), 
7Bom. H, G. App. xxxiii. (distinguished 
in Vaithitingam Mttdali v. Murugaian 



(1912), 37 Mad. 529) ; Sdbo Bewa v. 
Nahagun Haiti (1869), 2 B. L. B. 
App. 51; 11 W. B. C. B, 380; 
Nittianand GJwse v. Knshna Dyal 
GJiose (1871), 7 B. L. B. 1 ; 15 W. B. 

C. B. 300 ; Perkask Chunder Roy 
v. Dhunmonnee Dassea, Ben. S. 

D. of 1853, p. 96 ; HILT Dyal Nag 
v. Roy KrisUo Bkoomick (1875), 24 
W. B. C. B. 107; Hemsutollah 
(Chowdhry) v. JBrojo Soondur Roy 
(1872), 18 W B. C. B. 77, at p. 
80 ; Tincourie CTiatterjee v. Denonath 
Banerjee, W. B. 1864, C. B. 155; 
Roopmonjooree Chowdranee v. Ramlatt 
Sircai (1864), 1 W. B. C. B. 145; 
MoJiendro Lall Mookerjee v. RooJciney 
Dabee (1864), Coryton, 42, at p. 46. 

6 See Indian Evidence Act (I. of 
1872), B. 50. In that section "it 
will be noted that the words ' by 
blood marriage and adoption * have 
not been inserted after the word 
'relationship' by Act XVIII. of 
1872, as in the case of s. 32, els. (5) 
and (6). Illustration (a) refers to 
the case of marriage, but relationship 
is not mentioned," Ameer Ah and 
Woodroffe's " Law of Evidence," 1st 
od,, p. 360. This would scorn to 
&how that the conduct of relations 
would not be admissible as evidence 
in the case of adoption, but the 
Indian Courts have undoubtedly been 
in the habit of admitting such 



176 



PKOBABILITIKb. 



III* 



but such evidence cannot establish an adoption which is in law 
invalid. 1 

A person who asks the Court to presume that an adoption did take 
place, must establish an initial probability that the adoption was hkely 
to have been validJy made and that the conduct of the parties cognizant 
of the facts had been at leabt consistent with such an hypothesis. 3 

Where there is conflicting evidence upon the fact of an adoption, much 
miistt depend upon the probabilities of the case to be collected from the 
admitted or proved facts, but such probabilities do not take the place of 
e\ ulence. 

adopter. The fact that the person alleged to have adopted was childless, and 
advanced in years, and had despaired of having male issue ; 3 or the fact 

Kohritiuk* a^ that he was anxious to deliver himself from Put,* gives rise to a probability 
to future htato. that he wifehed to adopt 

Kmmty \\itli The fact that the alleged adoptive father or mother was at enmity with 
k in the reversioner might also render an adoption probable. 5 

The religious duty to adopt a son, which is said to be incumbent upon 
every childless Hindu, 6 is also a circumstance to be taken into considera- 
tion, 7 but by itself it has not much force, having regard te to the fact that 
childless Hindus die daily without having fulfilled this obligation, or made 
provision for its fulfilment after their death." 8 

On the other hand, the absence of notices to relations and of ceremonials 
may be evidence against the probability of the fact of adoption. In 



Religious 



otuvN amd 



evidence. With two exceptions (Hwr 
Dyed X<$ v. jfrojy Kri&to Ehoomicfc 
an<l Vya* Chhnanlnl v. Vya* Ram* 
c/Ktndru), the decisions on p. 175, note 
5, were given before the passing of 
the Indian Evidence* Act. 

1 See, however, Bhagwat Per&had 
v. llurari Lall (1910), 15 0. W. H. 
524, in which case the Court applied 
tho rule of id fact urn mlet quo& fieri 
non debutt, while ignoring tho con- 
struction of that rule in Gurulingaa- 
vnmi (Sri Jttahwu) v. Rumaldk&h- 
mamma (Sri Baluau) (1899), 20 I. A. 
113. at p. 144; 22 Mad. 398, at p. 
423 ; 21 ALL 400, at p. 487 ; 3 C. 
W. X. 427, at p. 448, 1 Bom. L. R. 
220 (nnt, p 130). 

a tlur Shanlar Portal Sittgh v. 
Lai fiagburaj &w* (1907), 34 I. A. 
125 ; 29 All. 519 ; 11 C. W. N. 841. 

a Huradhun J/ooX-urjaa v. Mathora- 
mth Hoflurjia (1849), 4 M. L A. 
414, at p. 425 ? 7 W. R. P. C. 71 ; 
Putin Lai v.Parbati Kunwtir (Musam- 
mat) (1915), 42 I. A. 155 f 37 All. 359 ; 
19 C W. N. 841 ; 17 Bom. L. R. 549. 
See Hoopmonjooree Choivdrancc v. 
Xamt&U Sircar (1864), 1 W. R. C. B. 
144, at p. 150 ; Btetooprw Patmokattea 
(Bmce) 



Patnaik (18C5), 2 W. R. C. R. 232, 
at p. 235. 

* Huradhun Mookurjia v. Mutltoia- 

' natk Mookurjia (1849), 4 M. I. A. 

414, at pp. 425, 426 ; 7 W. R. P. 0. 71. 

8 Soondur Koomaree Debbeea Y. 
Gudadhur Period Tewarrce (1858), 
7 M. L A. 54, at pp. 64, 67 ; 4 W. R. 
P. C. 116, at pp. 119, 120; Maghunada 
(Srt} v, Brozo Kitli&ro (Sn) (1876), 
3 I. A. 154, at p. 177 ; 25 W, R. C. R, 
291, at p. 295. 

Ante, pp. 101, 102. 

7 See Jtaghunada (Sn) v, JSrozo 
Ktihoro (Sri) (1870), 3 I. A. 154, at 
p 177; 25 W. R. C. R. 291, at p. 
295; Moopmonjoree Chowdranee v. 
Ectmlall Sircar (1864), 1 W. R. C. R. 
145, at pp. 150, 151 ; Sarodasoondery 
Dossee (S. J/.) v. Ttncowry Nundy 
(1863), 1 Hyde, 223, at p. 249. 

8 Nilmadhub Doss v. JRishumber 
DOM (18G9), 13 M. L A. 85, at p. 
100 ; 3 B. L. R, (P, 0.) 27, at p. 32 ; 
12 W. R. R C. 29, at p. 31. Sec 
Guruhttga3icamt (Sri JBalusu) v. Itama- 
Idkulimamma (Sri Balusu) ; JRadhamo- 
hunv.Hardai tii(1899),26I. A. 113, 
at p. 135 ; 23 Mad. 398, at p. 414 ; 
21 All. 460, at p. 477 ; 3 C. W. N. 
427, at p. 442 , 1 Bom. L. R, 226. 



CHAP. III.] PRESUMPTION, 177 

Sootroof/un Sutputty v, Sabifra Dye* the Judicial Committee say, " But 
although neither written acknowledgments, nor the performance of any 
religious ceremonials, are essential to the validity of adoptions, such 
acknowledgments are usually given, and such ceremonies observed, and 
notices given of the times when adoptions are to take place, in all families 
of distinction, as those of zemindars or opulent Brahmins, that wherever 
these have been omitted, it behoves the Court to regard with extreme 
suspicion the proof offered in support of an adoption. I would say, that in 
no case should the rights of wives and daughters be transferred to strangers, 
or more remote relations, unless the proof of adoption by which that transfer 
is effected be proved by evidence free from all suspicion of fraud, and so 
consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubt of its truth." 2 

The youth, 3 or vigour, 4 of the alleged adopting father, and the conse- Youth, 
quent probability of male issue, may also be a circumstance rendering 
the adoption improbable. 

"In considering the validity of" powers to adopt, "it is of great Position of 
importance, in the first place, to ascertain the position of the parties at pities, and 
the time when the instruments are alleged to have come into existence, motlves> 
and the motives which may have led to the execution of them." 5 

A permission to give in adoption may be presumed, 6 but Presumption 
no such presumption may be made with reference to a permission SMO^" 
to take in adoption, 7 

It has been held 8 that " when the Court is satisfied that the p ro0 f of 
authority to adopt really was given, it will require comparatively Sf 
slight proof of the performance $f the ceremonies by which the 
adoption is completed. But the Court will not presume that 
permission was given merely because it is shown that the usual 
ceremonies were duly performed." 

There may be a presumption that a widow does not adopt while in a 
condition of ceremonial impurity. 9 

1 (1835), 2 Knapp, 287, at p. 290 ; the lapse of a certain time." 

5 W. B. P. C. 109. See also Ondy 5 Soondur JKoomaree Deblcea v. 

Kadarun v. ArootiacTtella, Mad. dec. Gudadhur Pershad Teuxwree (1858), 

1857, p. 93 ; Bistooprea Patmohadea, 7 M. I. A. 54, at p. 64 ; 4 W. B. P. C. 

(Ranee) v. JSasoodeb Dull Bewartee 116, at p. 119. 

Patnaik (1865), 2 W. B. C. B, 232. "DattakaOhandrika,"fl.l,para.32. 

2 Cited with approval in Diwakar 7 TariniOharanChoiodhryv.Saroda 
v. Chandanfal (1916), 44 Calc. 29-1 ; Simian Dasi (1869), 3 B. L. B. A. 0. 
21 C. W. JSf. 314; 18 Bom. L. B. 992. 145 ; 11 W. B. C B. 468 

8 SootrooguniSutputtyv. SabitraDye 8 Radhamadhub Gossafo v Radha- 

(1835),2Knapp,287; 5W.B.P.C.109. lullvb Gossain (1862)^1 Hay, ,311 ; 2 

4 In Sarodasoondery Dossee (S. M.) Ind. Jur. 0. S. 5. Seeralso Mohendro 

v. Tincowry Nundy (1863), 1 Hyde, LaU Mookerjee v. ^Rookiney Dabee 

223, at p. 250, the Court said, "We (1864),CorytoS,42,aipp.45,46,where 

agree . . . that a Hindu does not adopt a similar observation was made, "When 

in his lifetime, unless he is prepared many years' have passed and the 

to acknowledge that he has lost the person whose adoption is questioned 

power of procreation ; for, if his wife has always been recognized as a son." 
is sterile, he may marry another 9 See IRanganayalcamma v. Alwar 

wife, and is enjoined to do so after Setti (1889), 13 Mad. 214, at p. 222. 

H.I/. N 



CHAPTEE IV. 



PARENT AXD CHILD (Continued). 

OF I>ATTAKA*ADOITION. 



affiliation. 



ADOPTION in the Dattaka form completely transfers the boy 
from tho family of his natural father to that of his adoptive 
father, and, except as specially provided by the law, 1 he acquires, 
us from the date of the adoption, 2 all tho rights, privileges, 
dutiuH, and obligations of a son bom to his adoptive father. 3 

The expressions '* father '* and u son *' in Acts of the Legislatures include 
ill the caac of Hindu** adoptive fathers and adopted sons. 4 



1 These special provisions are to 
l2 found in the ** Dattaka Mimansa " 
and the "* Dattaka Chandrika/' and 
relate to the effect of the birth of a, 
legitimate son after the adoption (see 
$ost t pp. 187, 1SS), and to the re- 
strictions placed upon an adopted 
son with regard to marriage and 
adoption in hia natural family (see 
anU\ pp. 44, 45, and po#t, p. 201). 

* Harel- Chnnd Bab* v. BfjoyChand 
Maltatab (1905), 9 C. W. N. 795, at 
p. 708; Moro Karaya* Joshi v. 
Balaji Raghwutk (1894), 10 Bom. 
809 t at p. 814 ; RnmMat v. Zafahman, 
if (18S1), 5 Bom. 
Sud<inwtd Mohapattur 
Debt? (1807), 8 W. 
R. C. R. 455; S. C. (1809), 11 W. R. 
C 4 . E. 436 (on appeal in this case this 
question did not arise* So&rjomonee 
Dayce v. Sitddanwnd MohaptritFr, I. 
A, Sup. VoL 212 ; 12 B. L. R. 304 ; 
20 W. E. C R, 377; Mad. Jur. 
46ft) ; A'arai'/i Mnl v. Koaer Xarain 
Myke (1879), 5 Calc, 251. 

* Pti&ma Coomari (bi v. Court of 
Ifttftflfe (1881), 8 I A. 220, at p. 24H ; 
$ Cftle- 30S at p. 311 ; S. C. in Court 
Kumaree Debee v. Jug. 
Acharjee (1879), S Cale. 
Nagintla* W*#wnfas v. 



Chintamnn 
030, at p. H37 
v. Stay) 



BacJioo Hurh'ssondas (1915), 43 I. A. 
56 j 40 Bom. 270 ; 20 C W. N". 702 ; 
18 Bom. L. R. 172 ; Joyh'aJiorc 
Chowdhry v. Panchoo Baboo (1879), 
4 C L. R. 538; Kah Komul 
Mozoomdar v. Urna Shunfatr Moitra 
(1883), 10 I. A. 138, at p. 149; 
10 Calc. 232, at p. 237 ; 13 C. L. R. 
370, at p. 381 ; S. C. in Court helow, 6 
Cale. 256, and 7 C. L. R. 145 ; Ram* 
bftat v. Lakskvnan Chintaman, Mayday 
(1881), 5 Bom. 030, at p. 637 ; Teen- 
cowrec Chattcrjce v. Denonath Saner- 
jte (1865), 3 W. R. C. R. 49 , Juggur- 
nath Stihme (Maharajah) v. MuUiun, 
Koonwtr (Muwt.) (1S65), 3 W, R. 
C R. 24. 

* See the isereral General Clauses 
Acts : X. of 1897, s. 3 (18), (53) ; I. 
(B. C.) of 1899, s. 3 (42) ; L (Bo. C.) 
of 1904, B. 3 (18), (45) ; I. (E. B, and 
A.) of 1909, s. 5 (24), (58); L 
(Burm. C) of 1898, s. 2 (22), (59) ; 
I. (Mad. C ) of 1891, s. 3 (30) ; L 
(Punj. C.) of 1898, s. 2 (18), (54) ; 
I. (U. P.) of 1904, 8. 4 (5), (42). 
Also see Hindu Wills Act (XXL of 
1870), s. 6; Agra Tenancy Act, II, 
(U. P.) of 1901, s. 22 ; I<ala, v. Nahar 
Singh (1912), 34 AIL 658; Tham- 
man Singh v. Dal Singh (1914), 37 
All. 7. 



CHAP. IV.] 



GUARDIANSHIP, 



179 



The expression " son " in a will includes an adopted son. 1 

When a married man having a son, is taken in adoption, the son does 

not acquire the gotra and a right of succession to the property of the 

family into which his father is adopted. 3 

When an adoption has been made by a widow, the rights of 
the adopted son do not date back to the death of his adoptive 
father.3 

An adoption peiulente lite has the same effect as a birth pendente lite.* 
As to an adopted son's impurity on deaths and births, and as to his 

competency to perform Sraddha rites, 5 see Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," 

p. 388. 

The right of guardianship of an adopted son passes by the 
adoption from the natural parents to the adoptive parents.^ 

A son adopted by a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara Rights of m 
school of law acquires the same rights in coparcenary property survivors lp * 
on adoption 7 as would be possessed on birth by a natural son 
born to his adoptive father. 8 

Except where a son is born to his adoptive father subsequent inheritance 
to the adoption, 9 an adopted son inherits to his adoptive father, 10 



1 Yethirajulu Naidu v. Mukuntha 
Naidu (1905), 28 Mad 363. 

2 Xalgavda Tavanappa v. Somappa 
Tamangavda (1909), 33 Bom. 669; 
11 Bom. L. R. 797. 

3 Lakshmana Rau v. Lakshmi Am- 
mal (1881), 4 Mad 160. See Ba- 
mundoss Mookerjca v. Tannee 
(Mussamut) (1858), 7 M. I. A. 169, 
at p. 184 ; Ganapati Ayyan v. Savi- 
thn Ammal (1897), 21 Mad. 10, at p. 
16 ; Narain Mal v. Kooer Narain 
Mytee (1879), 5 Calc. 251; Mora 
Narayan Joshi v. Balaji Raghunath 
(1894), 19 Bom. 809, at p. 814; 
cases collected in Morley's " Digest," 
vol. iu. 186. 

4 Rambhat v. Laksliman Chintaman 
JfeTaz/a%(1881),5Bom. 630, at p. 637. 

5 See "Dattaka Mimansa," s. 6, 
para. 50; "Dattaka Chandrika," s. 
1, para. 25 ; a. 3, para, 17. 

6 Sree Narain MiUer v. Kislien- 
soon&ory Dassee (Sreemutty) (1873), 
L A. Sup. Vol. 149, at p. 163 ; 11 B. 
L. R, 171, at p. 191 ; S. C. sub nomine 
Nogenfoo Ghwndro Mtttro v. JKishen- 
soondery Dossee (Sreemutty), 19 W. 



R. C. R. 133, at p. 139 ; Lakshmibai 
v. Shnd'har Va-sudev TaUe (1878), 3 
Bom. 1. As to rights of guardian- 
ship, see ante, pp. 46-49, and post, 
pp. 213, 214. 

7 See Rungama v. AtcJiama (1846), 
4 M. I. A. 1, at p. 103 ; 7 W. R. P. C. 
57, at p. 67; Sudanund Mohapattur 
v. Bonomallee (1863), Marsh, 317; 
2 Hay, 205; Sudanund Mohapattur 
v. Soorjo Monee Debee (1867), 8 W. 
R. C. R. 455; S. C. after remand 
(1869), 11 W. R. C. R. 436. On 
appeal this question did not arise, 
Soorjomonee Dayee, v. Suddanund Mo- 
hapatter (1873), I. A. Sup. Vol. 212; 
12 B. K R. 304 ; 20 W. R C. R. 
377 ; 8 Mad. Jur. 466. 

8 See post, pp. 225, 226 ; Heera 
Singh v. Buryar Singh (1866), 1 Agra, 
256 ; Rambhat v. Lakshman Chintaman 
Mayalay (1881), 5 Bom. 630, at p. 
637. 

9 See post, pp. 187, 188. 

10 Raje Vyankatrav Anandrav JVi'w- 
balkar v. Jayavantrav (1867>, 4 Bom, 
H. C. A. C. 191. 



180 INHERITANCE. [CHAP. IV. 

and to thu ri'lulioiw, whether lineal or collateral, of his adoptive 
father to the same extent as ho would have inherited if he had 
been born as a son to hi? adoptive father. 1 

As to the rlcvcsting of estates on adoption, sec post, pp. 193-199. 
The right of the adopted son and of his heirs to inherit to the following 
relations by adoption has been established : 

1. Paternal grandfather. 3 

2. Paternal uncle. 5 

3. First cousin of his father. 4 

4. First cousin of his grandfather. 5 

5. Father's brother's son. 6 

6. Father's daughter's son. 7 

7. Father's third cousin. 8 

8. The adopted son of the son of the brother of the man to whom the 
father of the claimant was adopted. 9 

Bights on Where an adopted son ousts his adoptive father's widow, who has 

taken P ssession fo ignorance of the adoption, he is entitled to receive 
such rents and profits which have been received, or might with due diligence 
have been received, between the death of his adoptive father and his 
getting possession, credit being given for the maintenance of the widow, 
funeral expenses, and all such expenditure as she might properly have made 
as widow, subject to any question as to limitation. 10 

Conversely the relations of the adoptive father will inherit 

1 Pudma Coomari Debt v. Court of 3 In Sumbhoochunder Chowdry v. 

Wards (1881), 8 I. A. 229; 8 Calc. Naraini Debia (1835), 3 Knapp, 55; 

302 ; S. C. in Court below, Puddo 5 W. R. P. 0. 10O ; it was held that 

Kumaree Debee v. Juggutkishore the adopted son of the brother of the 

Acharjee (1879), 5 Calc. 615 ; Joy- whole blood was entitled' to inherit 

ktehore Chowdhry v. Paw&oo Baboo in preference to the son of a brother 

(1879), 4 C. L. R. 538 ; Sumbtoodmn- of the half-blood. Kiskennatk Roy 

der CJiowdry v. Naraini Debia (J835), v. Hureegobind Rov, Ben. S. 1^>A 

2 Knapp, 55 ; 5 W. R. P. C. 100 ; 1859, p. 18. \ 

Lakhmi Chand v. Oatto Bai (1886), 8 * Dinomth Mukerjee v. Gopal 

AH. 319; Mokundo Lai Roy v. %- Churn MuJcerjee (1881), 6 C. L R 

litnt Nath Roy (1880), 6 Calc. 289; 379; 8 C. L. R. 57. 

7 G. L. R. 478 ; DiwruLlli Mukerjee 5 Tara Mo7iun BhuttacJiarjee v. 

v. Gopal Churn Mukerjee (1881), 9 Knpa Moyee Debia (1868), 9 W R 

C. L. R. 379 ; 8 C. L. R. 57 ; Tara C. R. 423. 

Mohun Bhultackarjee v, Kripa Moyee Lokenath &ov v. Shamasconduree 

Z>c6wr (1868), 9 W. R. C. R. 423 ; Ben. S. D. A. 1858, p. 1863 

Raj& Vyankatrav Anandrav Nimbal- * Pudma Coomari Debi v. Court of 

kar v. Jayavantrav (1867), 4 Bom. Fafe(1881), 8 I. A. 229; 8 Gala 302. 

H. C. A. C. 191 ; Oourhurree Kubraj 8 Mokundo Latt Roy v Bylcunt 

v. Rutnaturee Debia (Mussummui) Nath Roy (1880) 6 Calc 289 - 7 C 

(1837), 6 Ben. SeL R. 203 (new L. R. 478. 

edition, 250) ; Gooroopershad Bo$e v. * Qourhurree Kubraj v Rutnasuree 

RaMetwry Bo*e> Ben. S. D. A. 1860, Debia (Musmmmut} (1837), 6 Ben. 

" P ' * l * r * SeL R ' 203 ^ new edition, 3r50). 



o; unwar ^ 

saud Mitter (1824), Sir F. Macsna^h- PartapSnigh (1903) 25 All 266 
ten's " CojasiderfttioBS,** p. 5, ' 



CHAP, IV. j INHERITANCE. 181 

to the adopted son in the same way as if he had been a son born 
to his adoptive father. 

An hereditary title or honour passes to an adopted son, and Tuie. 
his descendants, in the same way as to a legitimate son, or his 
descendants. 

Where the adoption is by a husband alone, 1 or in association inheritance *r 
with his wife, or one of his wives, or where it has been made to Jlofte matrha 
him by his wife with his concurrence, or after his death, the son 
inheiits to the wife, 2 and to her relations,* in the same way 
as if he had been a son born to such wife. 

The right of the adopted son to inherit to the brother, 4 and father, 3 
of the adoptive mother has been upheld. 

Sir G. D. Banerjee 6 doubts whether in a Mitakshara case an adopted 
son will inherit his adoptive mother's mother's stndJian as he would there- 
by be preferred to the son of the deceased (post, p. 44:9), but he admits 
that there is no authority on the subject. 

The adoptive mother 7 and her relatives 8 inherit to the 
adopted son in the same way as if she had been his natural 
mother. 

Where an adoption is made by a husband in conjunction 
with one only of several wive#, or after his death by one of 



1 See Sham Kuar v. Gaya Din (1908), 35 I. A. 118; 35 Gale. 896; 
(1876), 1 All. 255, at p. 257 ; " Dat- 12 C. W. N. 729 ; 10 Bom. L. R. 
taka Mimansa," s. 1, para 22. 604). 

2 Teencowr&e Chatterjee v. DenonatU 4 Kali Komul Mozoomdar v. TJma 
Banerjee (1865), 3 W. R. C. R. 49; Sliunkur Moitra (1883), 10 I. A. 138; 
Raje Vyankatrav Anandrav Nimbal- 10 Calc 232 ; 13 C. L. R. 379. 

bar v. Jayavantrav (1867), 4 Bom. 5 JSMm Kuar v. Gaya, Din (1876), 

H. 0. A. C. 191. Contrd 2 Bom. 1 All. 255 ; Surjokant Nundi v. Mo- 

S. A. R, 178, cited in " Norton's Lead- Jiesh Chunder Dutt (1882), 9 Gale. 70. 
ing Oases," I. 101. 6 " Law of Marriage," 3rd ed., pp. 

8 Kali Komul Mozoomdar v. Uma 364, 365, 428. 

Shunkur Moitra (1883), 10 I. A. 138 ; 7 Anandi v. Hari Suba Pa% (1909), 

10 Calc. 232; 13 C. L. R. 379. This 33 Bom. 404; 11 Bom. L. R. 641. 

decision in effect overrruled Morun See Ramasawmi Aiyan v. Venca- 

Moee Debeah v. Bejoy Kishlo Gossa- taramaiyan (1879), 6 I. A. 190 ; 2 

mee (1863), W. R. Sp. No. 121 (so Mad. 91; Annapurni Nachiar v. 

far as this question is concerned), and Forbes (1899), 26 I. A. 246 ; 23 Mad. 

Chinnaramakristna Ayyar v. Minatchi 1 ; 3 C. W. N. 730 ; Jatindra Nath 

Ammal (1873), 7 Mad. H. C. 245. Chaudhuri (Rai) v. Amrita Lai Bagchi 

Sham Kuar v. Gaya Din (1876), 1 (1900), 5 C. W. N. 20 ; Lakhmi Chand 

All. 255 ; Surjokant Nundi v. MohesJi v. Gatto Bai (1886), 8 All. 319. 
Chunder Dutt (1882), 9 Calc. 70 ; 8 Gungapersad Eoy v. Brijessuree 

&c$ha Prasad Mullick v. Ranee Mani Cliowfthrain, Ben. S. D. A. 1859, p. 

Zto?ee (1906), 33 Calc, 947; 10 C. 1091. 
W. N* 695 (reversed on another point 



182 ADOPTED SON OF DISQUALIFIED MAN, [CHAP. IV. 

several wives, the adopted son l inherits only to that wife and 
her relations, his relationship to the other wives being that of 
a step-son. 

It is unsettled whether, when in Bengal a man adopts in conjunction 
with more than one wife, 3 or where two or more widows adopt in Western 
India jointly, 3 the adopted son inherits to all the widows so adopting and 
their relatives. As pointed out in VenJcata Narasimha Appa Row Bahadur 
(Sn Raja) v. Partkasarathy Appa Row Bahadur (Sn Raja] (1913), 41 L A. 
51, at p. 69 ; 37 Mad. 199, at p. 220 ; 18 C. W. N. 554, at p. 563 ; 16 
Bom. L. R. 328, at p. 337, the difficulty in supposing that he inherits to 
all the widows is very great. This seems to show that except perhaps in 
"Western India no such joint exercise of the power is possible (ante, p. 115). 

The mere concurrence by a widow in an adoption by her co-widow 
would not, it is submitted, confer upon the adopted son any rights of 
inheritance to her or her relations. 

Although it is unsettled it seems that when a husband adopts in spite of 
his wife's express dissent, the son does not inherit to her or to her relations. 4 

Adopted son A son adopted by a man who is disqualified from inheritance 

of disqualified * 

man. by reason of a personal disability, such as congenital blindness, 

impotence, or lameness, 5 cannot acquire greater rights than his 
adoptive father, and therefore cannot inherit to any one from 
whom the adoptive father was disqualified from inheriting. 6 

There is, it is submitted, nothing to prevent his inheritance from his 
adoptive father 7 and from his adoptive mother and her relations. Accord- 
ing to the " Dattaka Chandnka " 8 he is entitled to maintenance. 

pendants The descendants of an adopted son born after adoption 

of adopted i . i 

BOO. nave the same rights of inheritance as the descendants of a 

legitimately begotten son. 9 

As to the case of an adoption of a married man having a son, see post, 
p. 190. 



Nackiar v. Forbes ed., p. 136,* Sarkar's "Law of 

(1899), 26 I. A. 246 ; 23 Mad. 1 3 Adoption," pp. 202, 203, 419. As 

C. W. N. 730 ; S. C. in Court below, to the right of a natural son, see post, 

(1895), 18 Mad. 277; KasJieesJiuree p. 373. 

Debm v. Greeschunder Lahoree, W. B. 7 Sutherland's " Synopsis," Stokes' 

186 4> P- 71- Hindu Law Books," pp. 664, 

2 Seea%te, p 112. 671. 

8 See ante, pp. 115, 126. Sec. vi. para. 1. This is dis- 

4 See Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," puted in Sarkar's "Law of Adop- 
2fcd ed., pp. 215, 419D-419F. tion," p. 419. 

5 Ante, p. 109, and post, pp. Kishennath Roy v. HurreegobinA 

$I T22L v * , Eoy * Ben * s - D * A - of 1859 > * 18 ; 

^itaKsjiara, chap. u. s. x. para. Oourhurree Kwbraj v. Rutnasuree 

10; ** Dattjafca Chaadrika," s. vi. Debia (Mwsummut) (1837), 6 Ben. 

para. 1 ; '"Bftya-Bbaga," chap. v. SeJ. E. 203 (new edition, 250} 
s. 19 5 Mayne's Hindu Uw," 8th 



CHAP. IV.] WILL. 183 

An adopted son does not, as such, acquire any rights greater Bights no 
than those of a begotten son. 1 

The adoption of a son does not interfere with the powers , 

Adoption does 

of the adoptive father to dispose of 2 the property over which not alter 

, , . ,. ... o * ^ J father's 

he has a power of disposition, 3 powers over 

property. 

An adoptive father can defeat the rights of inheritance of his adopted 
son, 4 whether the property held by him be partible or impartible. 5 He 
can, in giving a power of adoption, require as a condition of the exercise 
of the power that the estate of his widow should not be interfered with, 6 
and might apparently impose such other conditions as are not inconsistent 
with the provisions of the law of gifts and wills. 7 

In eases governed by the Hindu Wills Act, adoption, or Adoption does 
the giving of a power of adoption, does not operate as a revoca- 
tion of a will. 8 

There is some authority that in other cases a Hindu has no power 
to completely disinherit his adoptive son, and that a will making no pro- 
vision for adopted sons would be invalidated by a power given subse- 
quently, 9 but it is submitted that there is no reason why an adoption should 
have greater effect than the birth of a son in revoking a will, Where the 
will purports to deal with property, over which the adopting father ceased 
to have a power of disposition on the birth or adoption of a son, it would 

1 Venkata Surya Mahipati Rama G Verikata Surya Mahipati Rama 
Krishna Rao Bahadur (Sri Raja Rao) Knshwa Rao Bahadoor (Sri Raja 
v. Court of Wards (1899), 26 I. A. Rao) v. Court of Wards (1899), 26 
83 ; 22 Mad. 383 ; 3 C. W. N. 415 ; I. A. 83 ; 22 Mad 383 ; 3 C. W. N. 
1 Bom. L. R. 277 ; Bhoobun Moyee 415 ; Sartaj Kuan (Ram) v. Deoraj 
Debiav.RamKishoreAcharjChowdhry Kuari (Ram) (1888), 15 I. A. 51; 
(1865), 10 M. I. A. 279, at pp. 310, 10 All 272. 

311 ; 3 W. R. P. C. 15, at p. IS. See Bepin Behari Bundopadhya 

2 By will, gift, or transfer. v. Brojonath Mookhopadhya (1882), 

3 See Bhupendra Krishna Ghose v. 8 Calc, 357; Radhamonee Debea v. 
Amarendra NatJi Dey (1915), 43 I. A. Jadubnarain Roy, Ben. S. D. A. of 
12 ; 43 Calc. 432 ; 20 C. W. N. 1855, p. 139 ; Prosunnomoyee (Ranee) 
169 ; 18 Bom. L. R. 347. v. Ramsoonder Sein, Ben. S. D. A. of 

4 Venkata Surya Mahipati Rama 1859, p. 162. 

Krishna Rao Bahadoor (Sn Raja) 7 See Ganapati Ayyan v. Sawthri 

v. Court of Wards (1899), 26 L A. Ammal (1897), 21 Mad, 10; ante, pp. 

83, at p. 89 ; 22 Mad. 383, at p. 114, 116. 

390 ; 3 C. W. N. 415, at p. 421 ; 8 Act XXI, of 1870, s. 2, read 

1 Bom. L. R. 277 ; Rungama v. with Act X. of 1865, s. 57. 

Atchama (1846), 4 M. I. A. 1, at p 103 ; 9 See futwafa of pundits in Naga- 

7 W. R. 57, at p. 62 ; Surendra Naih lutchmee Ummal v. Gopoo Nadaraja 

Ghose v Kola Chand Banerjee (1907), Chetty (1856), 6 M. I. A. 309, at p. 

12 0. W. N. 668 ; PursTwtam 8hama 320, referred to by Couch, C. J., in 

Shenvi v. Vasudev Krishna Shenvi Vinayak Narayan Jog v. Govindrav 

(1S71),, 8 Bom. H. C. (0. C.) 196 ; Chintaman Jog (1869), 6 Bom, H. C. 

Qti&fowA Mohapattur v. Bonomalke A, C. 224, at p. 230, 
(1863), Btek 317 } 2 Hay, 20& 



184 



[CHAP, iv < 



Arrangement 

restraining 

disposition. 



Coparcenary 
property. 



be ineffectual to deal with the property l except where assent to the pro- 
visions of the will was a condition of the adoption. 2 

Effect would apparently be given to an arrangement made at the time 
of the adoption stipulating that the adoptive father should not exercise 
his powers of disposition or undertaking to settle property on the boy. 
Such arrangement can be enforced at the instance of the adopted son. 3 

In cases governed by the Mitakshara law, the adoptive 
father has no power to destroy the adopted son's right of 
survivorship in coparcenary property. 4 



Arrangement 
limiting 
interest in 
ancestral 
property. 



Illustration. 

A made a will disposing of his ancestral property with regard to which 
he was the sole coparcener, and authorized his widow to adopt a son in 
a certain event. In a subsequent will he did not revoke this authority, 
but disposed of the property inconsistently with the first will. The later 
will was set aside, on the ground that the testator had no power of 
disposition, he having ceased to be sole coparcener. 5 

When, after attaining the age of majority, an adopted son 
ratifies an arrangement made between his natural father and 
the person adopting him limiting the interest in coparcenary 
property which he would acquire by adoption, he is bound by 
the arrangement. 6 It is unsettled whether, in the absence of 
such ratification, he can be bound by such arrangement, but 
it is submitted that if the arrangement be a fair one, and does 
not unduly interfere with the rights of the adopted son, effect 



1 As the will must be taken to 
speak from the death of the testator, 
at which time he would have no 
disposing power. ^^ 

2 See VinayaJc Narayan Jog v. Qo- 
vindrav ChintamaJi Jog (1869), 6 
Bom. H. C. A. C. 224. 

3 See Sure?idrak6s7iav Roy v. Door- 
gasundan Dassee (1892), 19 I. A. 
108, at p. 132 ; 19 Calc. 513, at p. 536 ; 
Bhala Nahana v. Parbhu Han (1877), 
2 Bom. 67. 

4 Gana$ati Aiyyan v. Savithri Am- 
wZ (1897), 21 Mad. 10, at pp. 14, 
15 ; Rathnam v. Sivasubramania 
(1892), 16 Mad. 353; Vitla, Buttten 
v. Jammamma (1874), 8 Mad. H. C. 
6. See Hindu Wills Act (XXI. of 
187% 8. S j Probate and Administra- 
tion Aot (V. of 18$1), & 4 ; LaksJiman 
I>ada Naik v 



(1880), 7 I. A. 181 ; 5 Bom. 48 ; 7 
C. L. B. 320; ChatturMooj Meghji 
v. Dharamsi Naranji (1884), 9 Bom. 
438; Lakshmi Shankar v. Vaijnath 
(1881), C Bom. 24 ; Adjoodhia Gir v. 
Kashee G^r (1872), 4 N. W. P. H. C. 
31 ; Buldeo Singh (Rajah) v. Koonwer 
MaJtabeer Singh (1866), 1 Agra, H. 
C. 155 ; Narottam Jagjiwan v. Nar- 
sandas Hanki&andas (1866), 3 Bom. 
H. C. (A. C. J.) 6 j Gangubai v. Ra- 
manna (1866), 3 Bom. H. 0. (A. C. J.) 
66. 

5 Venkatanarayana Pittai v . 8vb* 
lammal (1915), 43 I. A. 20 ; 39 Mad. 
107 ; 20 0. W. N. 234; 17 Bom. L. R. 
468. 

6 See Ramasaumi Aiyyan v. Yen- 
cataramaiyan (1879), 6 I. A. 196; 2 
Mad. 91 ; Kashilai v. Tatya (1916), 
40 Bom, 668; 18 Bom, L, B. 740. 



CHAP. IV.] ARRANGEMENT. 185 

will be given to it, at any rate when the arrangement is made 
with the adoptive father or is authorized by him. 1 

As the adoptive father is competent to exclude his adopted son by his 
will, there can be no objection to his making any arrangement as to the 
devolution of property over which he has a power of disposition, either 
at the time of adoption or thereafter. 2 

The Madras High Court has upheld dispositions of ancestral property by 
the adopting father with the consent of the natural father for the purpose 
of providing for the maintenance of the wife of the adopting father. 3 

In another case 4 the Bombay High Court held that when the adopted 
son and the person who gave him in adoption were fully cognizant of the 
disposition of the property made by the testator, and with the knowledge 
of such disposition, the natural father consented to the adoption taking 
place, and when the disposition and the adoption might, under the circum- 
stances, be regarded as one transaction, the disposition, though contained 
in a will, could not be repudiated by the adopted son. " The principle 
underlying the decision is that the disposition was one which it was compe- 
tent to the testator to make prior to the adoption, and that its acceptance 
being presumably a condition subject to which the adoption was made, it 
made no difference that the disposition was testamentary." 5 

The Madras High Court upheld an arrangement between the natural 
father and the adopting mother, where provision was made for the enjoy- 
ment of a portion of the property by the mother m the case of her disagree- 
ment with the adopted son, 6 but the Bombay High Court has refused 7 
to uphold an arrangement whereby the mother could dispose of immovable 
property, and in another case the same Court declined to give effect to an 
agreement whereby the adoptive mother retained her rights as a widow 
during her lifetime. 8 

Where by the arrangement property is given to a daughter or brother 
of the adoptive mother, 10 the adopted son is not bound by it. 

In Bamaaawmi Aiyan v Vencataramaiyan, 11 the Judicial Committee 
said, " How far the natural father can by agreement before the adoption 
renounce all or part of his son's rights, is a question not altogether un- 
attended with difficulty ; although the case of CMtko RayJiunatJi RajadiJcsJi 

i See Pirsab v. Gurappa (1913), 12 Mad. 490, at pp. 492, 493. Sec 

38 Bom. 227, at pp. 234-236; 16 Ganapati Ayyan v. Sawthn Ammai 

Bom. L. E. Ill, at pp. 11C, 117. (1897), 21 Mad. 10. 

a BJiupendraKrMmaGhosev.Ama- * VisalaksU Ammai v. S^varam^en 

rendra Nath Dey (1915), 43 I. A. 12 ; (1904), 27 Mad 577. 
43 Gale 432 ; 20 C. W. N. 169 ; 18 7 Venkappa v. Fafargowda (1900), 

Bom, L. E. 347. Soo Asita Mohon 8 Bom. L. B. 346, ^ 

Qlwse Mouhk v. Nirode MoJion Gtose 8 Pwshoitam v. Rakhmalai (1913), 

Moukk (1916), 20 C. W. N. 901. 16 Bom. L E. 57, 

' LaksJmi v. Mramanya (1889), Vyasacharya v Ven*ul>a* (1912), 

12 Mad. 490 1 Narayanasami v. Rama- 37 Bom. 251 ; 14 Bom. L. E. 110.K 
*awi(1890), 14 Mad. 172. Sec Basava 10 Venkappa v. Mwgowda (19Ub), 

v. ^w^Ti^a^a (1894), 19 Bom. 428. 18 Bom. L. E. 346. 

* Vlmyak Narayan Jog v. Govin. (1879), 6. LA. 196, at p. 208 ; 2 
faw Chintaman Jog (1869), 6 Bom. Mad. 91, at p. 101. See Z 
S A 224, R au v - Lakshmi Ammai 

" LMmi yl Subramanya (1889), Mad, 100, at p, 163, 



186 ABRAN CEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 

v. Janaki l certainly decides that an agreement on the part of the father 
that his son's interest shall be postponed to the life interest of the widow 
is valid and binding." In Bhaiya Edbidat Singh v. Indar Kunwar (Maha- 
rani) 2 the Judicial Committee said, "It is difficult to understand how a 
declaration by Guman Singh (the natural father) on an agreement by him, 
if it was an agreement, could prejudice or affect the rights of his son, which 
would only arise when his parental control and authority determined." 

It is submitted that the determination of this question depends upon 
the nature of the particular arrangement. It is scarcely necessary to 
speculate as to what would happen if the natural father assented to a 
disposition of the whole of the ancestral property away from the son, 
as such a case is not likely to occur. If such case did occur, the Courts 
would probably hold that the natural father acted in excess of his powers, 
and that his son was not bound by it ; but in dealing with a less extreme 
case, effect might well be given to a fair arrangement, in which the son 
distinctly benefits by the adoption. Where the adoptive father is separate 
from his kinsmen, and has, therefore, a power of disposing by will even of 
ancestral property, if he has no son, it must be remembered that he is by 
any such arrangement only doing what it was competent for him to do in 
the absence of an adoption. 

As to a condition contained in the permission to adopt, see ante, 
pp. 116, 117. 

There is authority that where there is an express power of 
adoption given by the husband, the widow cannot originate 
conditions. If she does so, the adoption would be valid, and 
the conditions would be ineffectual. 3 

Effect would be given to an arrangement which had been ratified by 
the boy after attaining majority. 4 

In Bombay it has been held that a widowc an, at the time of the adop- 
tion, make a fair arrangement for the protection of her interest in the estate 
during her lifetime. 5 The cases in which this conclusion has been arrived 
at were not cases in which express power was given by the husband, but 
cases where the widow exercised the power given to her by the system of 
Hindu law prevalent in Western India. 6 

When a widow obtains a reservation of rights by such an arrangement, 
she possesses therein only the ordinary rights of a Hindu widow. 7 

1 (1874), H Bom. H. C. 199. See widow can make conditions. 

Pirsab v. Ourappa Basappa (1913), * See Kali Das v. Bijai SJiankar 

38 Bom. 227 ; 16 Boin. L B. 111. (1891), 13 All. 391. 

a (1888), 16 I. A. 53, at p. 59 ; 16 * Ravji Vinayakrav Jagannath Shan* 

Calc. 556, at p. 564. karsdt v. Lakshmibai (1887), 11 Bom. 

8 Jaganwidha v. Papamma (1892), 381, at pp. 401, 402 ; Kadhabai v. 

16 Mad. 400. InSolukhna (Mussum- Ganesh Tatya, Oholap (1878), 3 Bom. 

waut) v. Mamdohl Pavde (1811), 1 7, at p. 8 ; ^tko Raghunath Maja- 

Ben. SeL B. 324 (new edition, 434), diksh v. Janaki (1874), 11 Bom. H, 

the pmdits considered that an 0. 199. 

instrwaswnt under which the widow Ante, pp. 124-126. 

remaiiw&d k possession was inopera- * Antaji v. Dattan (1893) 19 

tive. O, 0. Sadw (" Law of Adop- Bom. 36. 
tion," p. 408) cohered that the 



CHAP, IV.] AJfTBB-BOBN SON. 187 

A widow would apparently have no power to arrange with the natural 
father to obtain for herself an interest in property which had not "been 
vested in her, as, for instance, in property which, on her husband's death, 
passed by survivorship to other members of the family, and which is 
de vested by the adoption. 1 

In the case of the twice-born classes where, after an adoption, 2 son bom after 
a son is born to the adoptive father, the adopted son loses all ad P tlon * 
rights to the performance of religious ceremonies, and his rights 
of inheritance are reduced 

(a) If he be governed by the Bengal school, to one-half of 
the share of a lawfully begotten son. 3 

(6) If he be governed by the Benares school, to one-third 
of the share of a lawfully begotten son. 4 

The " Dattaka Mhnansa " (sec. 5, par. 40) gives the adopted son a 
fourth share. 

(c) If he be governed by the schools prevailing in Southern 
India 6 and Bombay, 6 to one-fourth of the share of a lawfully 
begotten son. 

In a case of partition of joint family property governed 
by the Mitakshara law the adopted son, or his son, son's son, 
or son's son's son, and the after-born son, or his son, son's 
son, or son's son's son, share in similar proportions. 

In a competition, either in a case of inheritance or in a case 
of partition between an adopted son, and a relation other than 

1 Post, p. 198. 534, which was governed by the 

2 Where the son is born before the Mitakshara law and apparently by 
adoption then the adoption is invalid, the Benares school. The Court there 
ante, p. 103. considered that an adopted son takes 

8 " Dayabhaga," x. 9 ; *' Dattaka half the share of a begotten son. 
Chandrika," v. 16-17 ; Sir F. Mac- 6 Ayyavu Muppanar v. Niladatchi 

naghten's " Considerations on Hindu Ammal (1862), 1 Mad. H. C. 45. 
Law," 137 ; 1 W. Macn. 70 ; 2 6 Qi/ria$a v. Ningapa (1892), 17 

W. "Macn. 184 ; Sarkar's " Law of Bom. 100. In. the earlier cases tho 

Adoption," p. 398. Consequently, if Bombay High Court considered that 

there be one begotten son the adopted the share was one-third of the share 

son takes one-third of the whole, if of a natural-born son; Hanmant 

there be two he takes one-fifth, and Ranwhandra v. BMmackarya (1887), 

so on . 12 Bom. 105 ; Ruklidb v. Chunilal 

* Sir F. Macnaghten's " Consider A.mbwfat (1891), 16 Bom. 347.' In 

tions on Hindu Law," 137; 1 W. Giriapa v. STzwgapa the Court did 

Macn. 70; 2 W. Macn. 184; "Mitak- not refer to these earlier decisions, 

shara," i. 11, 24, 25; "Dattaka See "Vyavahara Mayukha," p. 60, 

Mimansa," x. 1 ; v. 40. See, however, Mandlik's edition. As to Garbhari 

u&aiwnd Doss v. Sadhu Churn Gosaws, see Balgir v, Dhondgir (1903), 

(187b) f 4 Calc, 425 ; 30. L. R. 5 Bom. L. R. 114. 



188 



RENUNCIATION, 



[CHAP, 



Jains. 

Impartible 

property. 

Denunciation 
or waiver of 
rights. 



a son, son's SOB, or son's son's son, the adopted son, etc., receives 
the same share as he would have taken if he had been a 
lawfully begotten son. 1 

This rule has no application to Budras. In their ease lawfully 
begotten and adopted sons take equally. 3 

A right to inherit the management of debutter property is governed 
by the same principles as the inheritance of other property. 3 

In the case of inheritance to stridhan property an adopted stepson 
takes equally with a natural-born stepson. 4 

The birth of a lawfully begotten son would not apparently affect the 
incapacity of the adopted son to marry in, or adopt from, his adoptive 
family. 

The Jain law in this matter coincides with the ordinary Hindu law. 5 

In the case of impartible property the afterborn son succeeds to the 
exclusion of the adopted son. 6 

An adopted son can renounce his interest in property which 
becomes vested in him by virtue of his adoption, or may waive 
any of his rights therein, 7 

On such renunciation the person who would take in default of adoption 
would succeed to the property. 8 



1 Nagindas Bhugwaitdas v. Bachoo 
Hurl-issondas (1915), 43 I. A. 56; 
40 Bom. 270; 20 C. W. N. 702; 
18 Bom. L R. 172; Gangadhar Bogfa 
v. Hira Lai Bogla (1916), 43 Calc. 
944; 20 C. W. N. 489 (inheritance to 
the stridhan of a stepmother). 

2 Saja v. Suboaraya (1883), 7 
Mad. 253, at p. 254 ; Asita Motion 
Ghose Moulik v. Nirode Motion Ghose 
Moulik (1916), 20 0. W. N. 001; 
Bmmanund Mahunty v. Chowdhry 
Krishna Churn Patnaik (1882), un- 
reported case referred to in G. C. 
Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," p. 
403. The rule was apparently un- 
known to Sir F, JVIacnaghten/ who, 
in dealing with a ease of Sudras 
(Gopee Hohun Deb v. Raja Rajkrishw, 
"Considerations on Hindu Law," 
233), expressed the opinion that the 
adopted son was entitled to one-third 
of the estate. In Raghulanund Doss 
v. Sctdhu Churn Doss (1878), 4 Calc. 
25; 30. L. R. 534 (ante, p. 187. 
note 4), the parties were Sudras. 
See "Battaka Chandrika," s. 5, 
paras. 29-32 ; " Vyavastha Darpana," 
pp. 91&-915 (this is a digest of the 
Hindu law current in Bengal) ; 



" Vyavastha Chandrilca " (a digest 
of Hindu law current in all the Pro- 
vinces of India, except Bengal pzoper), 
vol i. p. 169; Sarkar's "Law of Adop- 
tion, pp. 402, 403 ; W. Macnaghten'a 
"Hindu Law,'* vol, i. 70, note; 
Strange's "Hindu Law," p. 99. 

3 Asita Mohan Ghosh Moutik v. 
Nirode Mohon Ghosh, Moulik (1916), 
20 C. W. N. 901. 

4 Gungadhur Bogla (Kumar) v. 
Hira Lai Bogla (Kumar) (1916), 20 
C. W. N. 489. 

5 RuUial v. Chumlal Amoushet 
(1891), 16 Bom. 347. 

6 Ramasami Kamaya, Naik v. 
Sundarahngctsainfii Eavnaya Naik 
(1894), 17 Mad. 422, at p. 435 ; S. C. 
affirmed on appeal, Sundaralinga- 
sawmi Kamaya Naik v. Hamasawmi 
JKamaya Naik (1899), 26 J. A. 55; 
22 Mad. 515 ; 1 Bom. L. R. 850. 

7 W. Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," 
vol. ii. pp. 183, 184. He cannot re- 
nounce his status as an adopted son, 
ante, p. 157. 

8 Mahadu Ganu v. Bayaji (1893), 
19 Bom. 239; Huvee Bhudr v. Roop- 
shuriker Shunkerjee (1829), 2 Borr. 
656, at pp, 605, 671. 



CHAP. IV.] RIGHTS IN NATURAL FAMILY. 189 

There is nothing to prevent an adopted son making over his rights 
in the property, or in a portion thereof, to his adoptive mother or to any 
one else after he has attained majority. 1 

Except when he has been adopted as a dmjamusliyayana^ Exclusion 
an adopted son loses by his adoption all rights as the son of his inn^ti?a! s 
natural father and mother. 3 famil y- 

He cannot inherit to the members of his natural family, 4 
except he has such right as the son of his adoptive father, 5 and 
they cannot inherit to him. 6 

It may happen that he loses the right to succeed to his natural mother 
and her relatives, and does not acquire a new mother, or maternal relatives 
for spiritual or temporal purposes, as where the adoption is by a bachelor, 
or a widower, 7 or perhaps where the adoption is made in spite of the 
express dissent of the wife of the adoptive father. 8 

An adopted son on adoption ceases to be liable for the debts 9 or other 
obligations for which he would have been liable as a member of his natural 
family. 

In parts of the Punjab the rights of the adopted son in his natural Punjab, 
family take effect if his natural father dies without leaving legitimate 
sons. 10 

It has been held that according to the Bengal school adoption Property 
does not devest any property which has vested in the adopted Ido^o 
son by inheritance, gift, or any form of self-acquisition previous 
to the adoption. 11 

1 Tara Munee Libia (Mussummaut) Minalsshi Sundara Nachiar (1901), 25 

v. Dev Narayun Rat, (1824), 3 Ben. Mad. 394 ; Srinivasa Ayyangar v. 

Sel. R 387 (2nd ed., 516) ; 2 Macn , Kuppan Ayyangar (1863), 1 Mad. 

pp. 183, 184. See Bhugobutty Dayee H. 0. 180 ; Gunga Persad Roy v. 

(Mtissamut) v. Chowdhry BJiolanath Brijessuree. Chowdhrain, Ben. S. D. 

ThaJcoor (1871), 15 W. R. C. R. 63 ; A. 1859, p. 1091. 
Mdhadu Oanu v. Bayaji (1893), 19 7 Ante, p. 106. 
Bom. 239. 8 Ante, pp. Ill, 112, 182. 

* Post, pp. 190, 191. & PranvuttM v. DeMstn (1824), 
8 " Manu," chap. ix. para. 142 ; Bom. Sel. R. 4 ; Kasheeper$hod v. 

" Dattaka Mimansa," s 6, paras. 6- Bunaeedhur, 4 N. W. P. (S. D.) 343. 

8; "Dattaka Chandrika," s. 2, paras. 10 " Punjab Customary Law," hi. 

18-20; " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 11, p, 83; "Punjab Oust.,'* 81. 

para. 32; "V. Mayukha," chap. ir. ll BehariLal Laha v. Kailas Clwnder 

B. 5, para. 21. Laha (1896), 1 0. W. N. 121. As, 

* W. Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," for instance, where he has acquired 
vol i. p 69 property by the will of a natural 

5 tfor an instance of this, see relation, or by succession, to a 
Annammak v. Mabbu Bcdi Reddy maternal grandfather, or it may be 
(1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 108, where the even by inheritance from his natural 
natural father took as heir to the son father, as was the case m Papamma 
whom he had given in adoption. v. F. Appa au (1893), 16 Mad. 384, 

6 Dw&nwraen Sing v. Ajeet Sing although the question as to whether 
(1799), I Ben. Sel. R. (new edition, it was de vested did not arise in that 
26) ; MutfwyyQf Rvjagopala Thevar v. case. 



190 DVYAMUSHYAYANA. [CHAP* IV 

The Madras High Court * lias held that under the Mitakshara property 
vested feolely and absolutely in the adopted son is not devcsted ; but in the 
case of inherited property a different view ha been taken in Bombay. 2 
In the second edition of his " Law of Adoption " pp. 410A to 419c, 
&astri (. C. Sarkar expressed the opinion that adoption operates as a 
civil death in the natural family, and that property inherited is* thereby 
devosted. This was the view accepted in Bombay. A different view 
\vas taken by Ftastri G. C'. Sarkar in the first edition of his work 
(pp. 380, 3$K)), The question depends upon the construction of the 
text of Mann (142), Max Mullcr'g translation, p. 355. "An adopted son 
shall ne\er take the family (name) ami the estate of his natural father; 
the funeral cake follow >s the family (name) and the estate, the funeral 
u/?vriiigs nf him uho gives (his son in adoption) leave (as far as that son is 
concerned)." 1 The cane m question can scarcely come wit hin Manus text as 
Man u would not have contemplated an only son being given in adoption. 
It is submitted that the caw? is governed by what is the ordinary rule 
of Hindu law, viz. that property once vested by inheritance cannot be 
devested. 

He would lose such rights as he might have had in coparcenary property 
as a member of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of law. 3 
When the property had been partitioned and a share had vested in him 
by \irtue of the partition, it has been held that he would retain his rights 
in it in spite of the adoption, and where the family property had vested in 
him as the only surviving member of a joint family, it would not be devested 
by his adoption. 4 

When a married Hindu, having a son, is taken in adoption, the son does 
not, like his father, lose the gotrn and rights of inheritance in the family 
of his birth. 5 

A boy can be adopted, so as to retain his relationship to his 
natural father, while acquiring the relationship of a son to his 
adoptive father. He is then said to be Dvyamusfiyayana 6 
(or son of two fathers). 

A boy adopted in Mithila by the Kritnma form of adoption is also 
treated as the son of two fathers. 7 



1 Ytnlata Xtrtmsunha Appa Row (1 91 6), 40 Bom. 429; 18 Bom. L.R. 258. 
(Sri Rajah) v. Rangayya Appa Row fi Kalgavda Tavanappa v. Somappa 

(Sri Rajah) (1905), 29 Mad. 437. On Tamangavda (1009), 33 Bom. 059 ; 

appeal in this case the question did 11 Bom. L. R. 797. 
not arise, 41 I. A. 51; 37 Mad. 199; 6 Literally two persons. See 

17 C. W. N. 124; 15 Bom. L. R. 1010. Sutherland's " Synopsis," head fifth. 

a Dattedraya v. Gfovind (1916), 40 The practice of adopting a son as 

Bom. 429 ; 18 Bom. L. R. 258. f&e d^amu&hyayaw seems to have origi- 

19 Bom. L. K. Journal, 1. nated from the obsolete practice of 

* *&> p. 179. niyoga. The dvyamusfyayana son, 

* Fe*&0&* Narasimha Appa Row treated of in the " Mitakshara," chap. 
(Sri Rajak) f f Rangayya Appa Row i. s. 10, is the son begotten in ac- 

(190% 29 Mad. 437; cordance with that practice. 
T, Gownd * Ante, pp. 157, 158. 



CHAP. IV.] 



DVYAMUSHYAYAKA, 



191 



Where there is an understanding, or a previous stipulation Nitya dvya* 
between the giver and the receiver in adoption, that the boy mm yw*** 
should belong to both of them, the boy is said to be nitya, 
dvyamushyayana l (i.e. perpetual or absolute son of two fathers). 

This arrangement can be made by a widow taking in adoption. 2 Adoption of 

The authorities show that where an only son has been adopted by a on ^y son ' 
united brother of his father it is presumed that there was an arrangement 
that he was to be dvyamushyayana? It does not seem to be very clear 
whether this rule applies only to the adoption of an only son of a brother, 
or whether it is applicable to all only sons. 4 It applies to adoption by 
widows of brothers. 5 

As it has now been held that an only son can be adopted in the Dattaka 
form, 6 the only advantage in adopting a boy as a dvyamushyayana is that 
the boy is not removed entirely from his natural family ; but a boy so 
adopted could not secure the salvation of the person adopting as 



1 Sec Uma Deyi (Srimaii) v. Go- 
loolanwtd Das Mahapatra (1878), 5 
I. A. 40, at pp. 50, 51 ; 3 Calc. 587, 
at p. 598 ; 2 C. L. R. 51, at p 58. 
Opinions of pundits in Ha^mun Chull 
Sing (Raja) v. Ounsheam Sing (Koomer) 
(1834), 2 Knapp, 203, at pp. 206-288 ; 
Joymoney Dossee (Sreemutty) v. Sibo- 
soondry Dossee (Sreemutty) (1837), 
Fulton, 75; Shumshere Mull (Raja) 
v. Ddraj Konwur (1816), 2 Ben. Sel. R 
189 (2nd ed., 216) ; 2 W. Macn. 192, 
193 ; Strangers " Hindu Law," vol. i. 
p 86; W. Macnaghten's u Hindu 
Law," vol. 11. 192; " Dattaka Mi- 
mansa," s. 6, para. 48 ; " Dattaka 
Chandnka," s 2, para. 24. 

2 Krishna v. Paramsliri (1901), 25 
Bom. 537 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 73. 

3 Basava v. Lingangauda (1894), 19 
Bom. 428, at p. 454; Uma Deyi 
(Srimati) v. Gokoolanund Das Maha- 
patra (1878), 5 L A. 40, at pp. 50, 
51 ; 3 Calc. 587, at p. 598 ; 2 0. L. 
R. 51, at p. 58. Contra Lctxmipatirao 
v, Venkatesh (#16), 41 Bom. 315; 19 
Bom. L. R.*23. See opinions of 
pundits in Haimun Chull Sing (Raja) 
v. Gunsheam Sing (Koomer) (1834), 
2 Knapp, 203, at pp. 206-208; 
Nilmadhub Doss v. Bishumber Doss 
(1869), 13 M. I. A. 85, at pp. 100, 
101 ; 3 B. L. R. P. C. 27, at p. 32 ; 
12 W. R P. C. 29, at p. 31 

* Mr. Mayne, in his " Hindu Law " 
(8th edL, p. 231), applies this rule 
only to the son of a brother. See 
also Gocoolanund Doss v. Wooma 



Daee (1875), 15 B. L. R. 405, at pp. 
415, 416 ; 23 W. R. C. R. 340, at p. 
341 ; S. C. on appeal, Uma Deyi 
(Srimati) v. Gokoolanund Das Maha- 
patra (1878), 5 I. A. 40, at pp. 50, 
51; 3 Calc. 587, at p. 598; 2 
C. L. R. 51, at p. 58. Sastri G. C. 
Sarkar ("Law of Adoption," p. 
377) says, "It may no doubt be 
contended from what Nanda Pandita 
says in one passage that the gift of 
an only son is limited to the case of 
brothers. But in the very next 
passage ( c Dattaka Mnnansa,' n. 39) 
he explains the principle of the 
adoption of an only son, which is 
applicable to all cases. And this 
general position is supported by what 
is said in the ' Mitakshara ' with 
respect to the analogous case of a 
son produced by a man other than 
the brother on another man's wife. 
The 'Dattaka Chandrika,* however, 
does not appear to limit the dvya- 
mwshyayana adoption of an only son 
to the case of adoption by a paternal 
uncle only, but intimates it to be 
applicable to all cases " (" Dattaka 
Chandrika," ii. 28; iii. 17; v. 33). 
See also Krishna v. Paramdvri (1901), 
25 Bom. 537at p. 542 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 73. 

5 See Krishna v. Paramsliri (1901), 
25 Bom. 537 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 73. It 
was not in that case necessary to 
raise any presumption, as the adoption 
was proved to have been in the 
dvyamushyayana form. 

6 Ante, p. 145. 



192 ' DVYAMUSHYAYANA. [CHAP. IV. 

effectually as a DatlaJca son. 1 The adoption of a boy as a dvyamiishyayana 
under these circumstances seems to have arisen from a desire to reconcile 
the prohibition against the adoption of an only son with the recommenda- 
tion to adopt the son of a brother. There is no necessity to evade a 
prohibition which has now been held to have no legal force. 

In some parts of India a nitya dvyamushyayam seems to be quite 
obsolete. 2 It is obsolete on the east coast, but is said to be the ordinary 
form of adoption recognized in Malabar and amongst the Nambudri 
Brahmins. 3 The practice has been held by the Bombay High Court to 
exist among Lingayets, whether the brothers are divided or joint. 4 

It is said to be not at all unusual in the southern districts of the Bombay 
Presidency, 5 and it has been recognized by the Judicial Committee in two 
cases from Bengal, and Ly the Allahabad High Court in a case from 
Bareilly. 7 

flvya- When from a different cjolra (family) a boy was adopted after he has 
mushyayana. keen initiated into the ceremony of tonsure in the gotra of his natural 
father, and was invested with the sacred thread in the gotra of his adoptive 
father, as the rites of initiation have been performed by both fathers, he 
was termed anitya dvyamiishyayana 8 (i.e. temporary son of two fathers). 
The anitya dvyoMvitshyayaiia is unknown to modern Hindu law. 9 

The forms and conditions of dvyamusliyayana adoption arc 
the same as in other cases, where the adoption is in the Dattaka 
inheritance a. form. 10 The boy adopted inherits both in the family in which 
he vras born and in the family of his adopter. 11 

The issue of the anitya dvyamushyayaiia seem to have reverted to 
their father's natural family. 12 As in the case of a nitya dvyamushyayana 

1 Vma Deyi (Snmcdi) v. Gokoola- Uma Deyi (Srimatv) v. Gokoolanund 
nund Das Mdhapatra (1878), 5 I. A. Das Mahapatra (1878), 5 I. A. 40, at 
40, at p. 51 ; 3 Gale. 587, at p. 598 ; pp. 50, 51 ; 3 Calc. 587, at p. 598 ; 
2 0. L. R. 51, at p. 58 ; Basava v. 2 0. L. R. 51, at p. 58. 
Lingangcwda (1894), 19 Bom. 428, at 7 Behari Lai v. Shib Lai (1904), 
pp 454, 456 ; Chenava v. Basangavda 26 All. 472. 

( 1895), 21 Bora 105, , at pp. 108, 109. 8 See Shumshere Mutt (Raja) v. 

2 Strango's " Manual," 2nd ed., Dilraj Konwur (Ranee) (1816), 2 Ben. 
para. 94; V. N. Mandlik, p. 506; Sel R. 189; 2nd ed , 216, at p. 221. 
Had. Dec. of 1859, p. 81 ; Basava v. * See Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th 
Llngangauda (1894), 19 Bom. 428, at ed , p. 231. 

pp. 454, 455. 10 Krishna v. Paramshri (1901), 25 

8 Vasudevan v. Secretary of State Bom. 537, at p 542 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 

(1887), 11 Mad. 157, at pp. 167, 179. 73, See Sarkar's " Law of Adoption," 

4 Chenava v. Basangavda (1895), p, 376. 

21 Bom. 105. 11 See " Vyavahara Mayukha," 

5 Steele's " Law and Custom," 45, chap. Jv. s. 5, para 25. 

47, 183, 384 ; Basava v. Lingangauda 12 W. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 

(1894), 19 Bom. 428, at pp. 466, vol. i. p 71, referred to in Uma Deyi 

467 ; Krishna v. Paramshri (1901), (Snmati) v Gokoolanund Das Maha- 

25 Bom. 537, at p. 543 ; 3 Bom. L R. patra (1878), 5 L A. 40, at p. 51 ; 3 

73. ' Calc. 587, at p. 598 ; 2 C. L. R. 51, 

8 N&meiffwb Doss v. BishumberDoss at p. 58. See " Dattaka Mimansa," 

(1869), 13 ML I. A. 85, at pp. 100, s. 6, paras. 41-44; Strange's "Hindu 

101 ; 12 W. R. P. a 29, at p. 31 ; Law," voL ii. pp. 122, 123, 



192 BVYAMUSHYAYANA. [CHAP, IV. 

effectually as a Datiabi son. 1 Tho adoption of a boy as a dvyamushyayana 
midcr these circumstances seems to have arisen from a desire to reconcile 
the prohibition against the adoption of an only son with the recommenda- 
tion to adopt the son of a brother. There is no necessity to evade a 
prohibition which has now been held to have no legal force. 

In some parts of India a mtya dvyamusliyayana seems to be quite 
obsolete. 2 It is obsolete on the east coast, but is said to be the ordinary 
form of adoption recognized in Malabar and amongst the Nambudri 
Brahmins. 3 The practice has been held by the Bombay High Court to 
exist among Lingayets, whether the brothers are divided or joint. 4 

It is said to be not at all unusual in the southern districts of the Bombay 
Presidency, 5 and it has been recognized by the Judicial Committee in two 
cases from Bengal, and by the Allahabad High Court in a case from 
Bareilly. 7 

Amtya dvya- When from a different goira (family) a boy was adopted after ho has 
mwhyayana. |^ ecn initiated into the ceremony of tonsure in the gotra of his natural 
father, and was invested with the sacred thread in the gotra of his adoptive 
father, as the rites of initiation have been performed by both fathers, he 
was termed anitya dvyamushyayana 8 (i.e. temporary son of two fathers). 
The anitya dvyamushyayana is unknown to modern Hindu law. 9 

The forms and conditions of dvyamusliyayana adoption are 
the same as in other cases, "where the adoption is in the Dattaka 
inheritance m form. 10 The boy adopted inherits both in the family in which 
he \vas born and in the family of his adopter. 11 

The issue of the anitya dvyamusliyayana seem to have reverted to 
Iheir father's natural family. 12 As in the case of a nitya dvyamushyayana 

1 Vma D&yi (Srimah) v. GoJcoola- Uma Deyi (Srimati) v. Gokoolanund 

nund Das Mafwyatra (1878), 5 I. A. Das Mahapatra (1878), 5 I. A. 40, at 

40, at p. 51 ; 3 Calc. 587, at p. 598 ; pp. 50, 51 ; 3 Gale. 587, at p. 598 ; 

2 C. L. R. 51, at p. 58 ; Basava v. 2 C. L. R. 51, at p. 58. 
Linganganda (1894), 19 Bom. 428, at 7 Behari Lai v. Shib Lai (1904), 

pp. 454, 456 ; Chenava v. Basangavda 26 AIL 472. 
(1895), 21 Bom. 105, .at pp. 108, 109. 8 See Shumshere Mutt (Raja) v. 

3 Strange's "Manual," 2nd ed., Dilraj Konwur (Ranee) (1816), 2 Ben. 

para. 94,- V. N. Mandlik, p. 506; Sel. R. 189; 2nd ed., 216, at p. 221. 
Mad Dec of 1859, p. 81 ; Basava v. 9 See Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th 

Ltngangauda (1894), 19 Bom. 428, at ed., p. 231. 
pp. 454, 455 10 Krishna v. Paramshn (1901), 25 

3 Vasudevan v. Secretary of State Bom. 537, at p. 542 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 
(1887), 11 Mad. 157, at pp. 167, 179. 73. See Sarkar's " Law of Adoption, 1 * 

4 Chenava v. Basangavda (1895), p. 376. 

21 Bom 105. See " Vyavahara Mayukha,'* 

5 Steele's " Law and Custom," 45, chap. jv. s. 5, para. 25. 

47, 183, 384 ; Basava v. Lingangauda 12 W. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 

(1894), 19 Bom. 428, at pp 466, vol i. p 71, referred to hi Uma Deyi 

467 ; Krishna v. Paramshn (1901), (Srimati) v. Gokoofanund Das Maka- 

25 $om. 537, at p. 543; 3 Bom L. R. patra (1878), 5 I. A. 40, at p. 51 ; 3 

73. Calc. 587, at p. 598 ; 2 C. L. R. 51, 

6 N&madkubDo$sv.Bishu,mberDos8 at p. 58. See "Dattaka Mimansa," 
(1869), 13 Kr L A. 85 at pp. 100, s. 6, paras. 41-44 ; Strange's " Hindu 
101 ; 12 ^. R. P. 0. 29, at p. 31 ; Law," vol. ii. pp. 122, 123. 



CHAP. IV.] 



DVYAMUSHYAYANA., 



193 



the adoption is complete, it is submitted that thw issue inherit in the 
adoptive family, and in that family only. 1 

Failing near heirs, the natural mother 3 and other natural 
relations will inherit to a man adopted in this form. 

Sastri G. C. Sarkar (" Law of Adoption," 2nd ed., p. 383) says, " A 
difficult question arises when such a son dies, after inheriting property 
from both adoptive and natural fathers. It is reasonable that both the 
mothers should inherit the respective shajes of the property inherited by 
the son from their respective husbands," 

If a son is born to the natural father, the dvyamushyayana After-born 
son takes half of what the after-born son takes. If a son is soa * 
born to his adoptive father, he takes half of an adopted son's 
share. 3 

The " Mayukha " says, 4 " If both have legitimate sons, he offers an 
oblation to neither, but takes a quarter of the share allotted to a legitimate 
son of his adoptive father." 

Adoption by a widow vests in the adopted son (as the Vesting and 
heir of her husband) the estate vested in her as widow, 5 or 
as mother of a deceased son, 6 or vested in her co- widow, 7 as 



1 See Sutherland's "Synopsis of 
Law of Adoption," head v. ; R. Sar- 
vadhikari's " Law of Inheritance," p. 
533. Sastri G. C. Sarkar says (" Law 
of Adoption," p. 376) that the de- 
scendants continue to belong to both 
the gotras or families. 

2 See BeTian Lai v. 8Mb Lai (1904), 
26 All 472. 

8 G. C. Sarkar's "Law of Adop- 
tion," p. 403 ; " Dattaka Chandrika," 
s. 5, paras. 33, 34. As to what is 
such share, see ante, p. 187. 

* IV. 5, para. 35. See Mayne's 
" Hindu Law," 8th ed., p. 232. 

6 See Mondakini Dasi v. Adinath 
Dey (1890), 18 Oalo. 69 ; Eamundoss 
Mook&rjea v. Tarinee (Mussamut) 
(1858), 7 M. I. A. 169, at p. 185; 
Lakshmana Rau v. Lakshmi Ammal 
(1881), 4 Mad. 160, at p. 164 ; Sree- 
ramulu v. Kristamvm (1902), 26 Mad. 
143, at p. 152 ; Gollwtor of Bareilly 
v. Nwaen Day (Musst.) (1868), 3 
Agra, 349. It does not affect her 
gtndhan property. 

* Jatindra NatTi Ctyu&lmri (Rai) 
v, Awrffo L<d Ba0cM (1900), 5 C. W. 
N". 30 ; Itonji Vinayakrav Jaggawnatfa 

HL. 



ShanJearsett v. LaJcshm&ai (1887), 11 
Bom. 381, at p. 397; Jamnabai v. 
Baychand Nalwdchand (1883), 7 Bom. 
225 ; Lakhmi Ohand v. Gatto J5a* 
(1886), 8 AIL 319. See V&anki 
Venkata Krishna Row (Rajah) v. 
Venkata Rama LaJcshmi Narsayya 
(1876), 4 I. A. 1, at p. 9; 1 Mad. 
174, at p. 186 ; 26 W. R. C. E. 21, 
at p. 23 ; Ramasawmi Aiyah v. Ven- 
cataramaiyan (1879), 6 I. A 196, at 
p. 208 ; 2 Mad. 91, at p. 101 ; Bykarti 
Monee Roy v. Kisto Soonderee Roy 
(1867), 7 W. R. C. R. 392. A oon- 
trary opinion was expressed in Go- 
fando Nath Roy v. Ram Kanay 
Chowdhry (1875), 24 W. JR. C R, 
183, and Pitddo Eumaree Debee v. 
Juggwt Ki&hore. Acharjee (1875), 5 
Calc. 615, in the former of which 
cases the question did not directly 
arise, and in the latter the decision 
was set as&e by the Judicial Com* 
mittee upon another ground (Pudma 
Coowtri Debi v. Court of Wards 
(1881), 8 I. A. 229; 8 Calc. 302). 
See G. C. Sarkar's "Law of Adop- 
tion," p. 411. 

7 Mondakini Dasi v. Adinath Dey 



194 



BE VESTING, 



[CHAP 



widow, 1 subject to a right of maintenance; 3 but, with these 
exceptions, it does not devcst any estate of inheritance which 
has been taken by a pornon, as heir of a male holder other than 
tho person to whom tho adoption was made. 3 

This proposition applies only to cases governed by the Bengal school 
ol law, and to property which has passed by inheritance under the Mitak- 
ehara system. It has no application to coparcenary property held by 
the members of a joint family under the Mitakshara school, as to which, 
see pot>t, p. 198. 

Illustrations. 

(i.) A, governed by the Bengal school of law, dies, leaving a son B, 
and a widow C, and having given to C a power to adopt a son in case of 
failure of male issue. B dies, leaving a widow B. C adopts E. E cannot 
oust D. 4 

(ii.) A, the owner of an Impartible zemindari, dies, leaving a son B, 
and a widow C. B dies unmarried. C validly adopts D. D can oust C. 5 

(iii.) A, a separated Hindu, governed by the Mitakshara law, dies, 
leaving a widow B, and a son C by another wife. C dies unmarried, and 
thereupon B adopts 3>. D cannot oust the heir of C who had succeeded 
on C's death. 6 

(iv.) A, governed by the Bengal school of law, dies, leaving a widow B, 



(1890), 18 Calc. 69; Rakhmabai v. 
Radhabai (186S), 5 Bom. H C. A. C. 
118, at p. 192; Gopal Balkrishna 
Xfnjale v. Vishnu Rnghunath Kenjak 
(1898), 23 Bom. 250 , Artwva, v. 
Mahadganfa, 22 Bom. 416 ; Bnmji v. 
Ghamau (1879), 6 Bom. 498. 

1 Where the estate is vested in tho 
co-widow as heir to her soa it cannot 
bo so devested ; Faizuddin Ali Khan 
v. Tincown Saha (1895), 22 Calc. 
565; Anandihai v. Kathibai (1904), 
28 Bom. 401. 

2 Dhurm Da* Pandty v. Shama- 
soondn Dibiah (1843), 3 M. I. A, 
229, at p. 243 ; W. B. P. C. 43, at 
p. *5. 

3 Bhubaneswari Debt v. Nilkomul 
Lahiri (1885), 12 I. A. 137 ; 12 Calc. 
18 j S. C. in Court below, Nilcomul 
Lahuri v. Jotendro Mohun Lahuri 
(1881), 7 Calc. 178; 8 C. L K. 401 ; 
Rally Prosonno Ohose v. Gocool 
Chuwter Matter (1877), 2 Calc. 295 ; 
Dhurm JOow Pandey v. Shama Soondri 
&9M{Musw,mat) (1843), 3 M. L A. 
229; 6 W. It P. C. 43 ; Oopal Bal- 
krishna JTej^ofe v. Vtehnu Maghunath 

(1908), 



deo Vishnu Manohar v. Ramchan&ra 
Vinayak Modak (1896), 22 Bom. 551 ; 
Dharnidhar (Shn) v. Ghinto (1895), 
20 Bom. 250 ; Gavdappa v, Girimal- 
fappa (1894), 19 Bom. 331 ; Chandra 
v. Gojarabai (1890), 14 Bom. 463 ; 
Annammah v. Mabbu Bali Jteddy 
(1875), 8 Mad. H. 0. 108 ; Rupchand 
Hindumal v. Jtakhmdbai (1871), 8 
Bom. H. C. A. C. 114; estate of grand- 
mother, Drobomoyee Chmvdhrain v. 
Shama Chum Chowdhry (1885), 12 
Calc. 246 ; estate of mother, Amndi- 
bai v Kashibai (1904), 28 Bom. 461 ; 
6 Bom. L. R. 404 ; estate of daughter, 
Lakshmibai v. Vtehm Vasudev Bele 
(1905), 29 Bom 410 ; 7 Bom. L. R. 
436, and cases below, notes 1-3, 
and post, p. 195, notes 4-9. 

* Bhoobun Moyee Delia (Mu&- 
wtmat) v. Mam Kishore Acharj Chow- 
dhry (1865), 10 M. I. A. 279; 3 W. 
R. P C. 15. 

5 VeUanki Vmkata Krishna Row 
(Rajah) v. Venkata Mama Ldkshmi 
Nototyya (1876), 4 L A. 1 ; 1 Mad. 
174. 

6 Annammah v. Matibu Bali 
^f*75) ? 8 Met4 H C, 108, 



CHAP* IV.] DEVESTING. 195 

and a son by another wife, and a mother D. C dies unmarried, and 
thereupon B adopts E. E cannot oust D who had succeeded on C's 
death. 1 

(v.) A, governed by the Bombay law, dies, leaving a widow B, and an 
undivided son C. C dies, leaving a widow D and a son E, who subsequently 
dies. On E's death, B adopts F. F cannot oust D. 2 

(vi.) A and his sons B and C were members of an undivided family, 
governed by the Bombay law. B died, leaving a widow D ; then A died. 
On A's death, C became the last surviving member of the coparcenary. 
died, leaving a widow E. After C's death, D, having express authority 
to adopt, adopted F. F cannot oust E. 3 

(vii.) A dies, leaving three widows and B tho wife of a son who had 
predeceased him. B adopts C. C cannot oust the widows. 4 

(vih.) A and B were undivided brothers, governed by the Mitakshara* 
school. A dies, leaving a widow C. B dies, leaving a widow D. C adopts 

E. E cannot oust D, 5 

(ix.) A, governed by the Bengal school, dies, leaving a widow B, and 
a daughter C, and a brother's son D. C dies, then D dies, having given 
to his widow E a power of adoption. Then B dies. Afterwards E adopts 

F. F has no right to the property. 6 

(x.) A, governed by the Mitakshara, dies, leaving two widows B and C, 
and a son D by B. He authorized to adopt a son in the event of 1) 
dying unmarried. D died unmarried. C adopted a son E, to which 
adoption B was not a party, E cannot oust B who succeeded as heir 
to her son. 7 

(xi.) A, governed by the Bengal school, dies, leaving a widow B, and 
two brothers and D. C dies, leaving a son E. D dies, leaving a widow 

F, and having given her a power of adoption. After B's death, F adopts 

G. G cannot compel E to give him half the property. 8 

As to vatan property, see BMmabai v. Tayappa Murarrao (1913), 37 
Bom. 598 ; 15 Bom. L. R. 783. 

In Kalidas Das v. Krishan Chandra Das* Peacock, O.J., 

1 Drobomoyee Ghowdhrain v. Shama Chundcr Mitter (1877), 2 Calc. 295. 
Churn Chowdhry (1885), 12 Calc/246. If tho adoption had taken place 

2 Keshav ftamkrishna v. Oovind during tho lifetime of B, F would 
Ganesh (1884), 9 Bom. 94. have succeeded, but on B's death the 

3 Chandra v. Gfojarabai (1890), 14 property must have vested in the 
Bom. 463. If D had adopted before then heir of A. 

C's death F would have been entitled 7 Faizuddin AU Khan v. Tincowri 

to share with C, idem, at p. 4G6, on tho Saha (1805), 22 Calc. 565. 
authority of Rayhunada (Sri) v. 8 If tho adoption had taken place 

Brozo Kislioro (Sri) (1876), 3 I. A. in tho lifetime of C then G would 

154; 1 Mad. 69; 25 W. R. C. K. have been entitled to share with E; 

29L JBhulaneswari Debi v. Nilkomul Lahiri 

* Dharnid7Mr(8tri)v.aMnto(18<)5), (1885), 12 I A. 137; 12 Cab. 18.; 

20 Bom. 250. S. C. in Court below, Nvkomul Lahun 

5 Adivi Suryapralcasa Rao v. Ntda- v. Jotrendo Mohun Lahuri (1881), 7 

mwiy Gangaraju (1909), 33 Mad. 229. Calc. 178 ; 8 C. L. E. 401. 
See ftpychand Hindumal v. JBoJftmo- 8 (1869), 2 B. L. B. (F. B.) 103, 

), 8 Bom. H. Q. A. C. 114. at p. Ill ; 11 W. R, (A, 0. J.) 1J, ^ 



196 



DBVESTINfl. [CHAP. 



said, " There is no case in which an estate vested by inheritance 
can be devostod by the adoption of a son by a widow after her 
husband's death." 

Although the judgment proceeded on the circumstance that the person 
in whom the estate was vested had assented to the adoption, it is said 
in Bain Anaji v. Satnoji Krishnarav, 1 " For the purposes of inheritance 
the adoption may bo considered as relating back to the death of the 
adoptive father devesting all estates which have during the intermediate 
period become vested, as it were, conditionally in another." This is, it 
is submitted, put too broadly. In the same case 3 the Court, in refemng 
to Sri Snghuwfa v. Sri Brozo Kislioro* says that "the person whose 
estate was there devested was a male full owner," but in the case cited the 
parties were members of a joint undivided family, governed by the Mitak- 
shara law, and the person whose estate was devested had not obtained it 
by inheritance, but by survivorship. 4 

In Surendra Nandan, Das v. Sailaja Kant Das, 5 expressions are used 
which would seem to apply to an estate of inheritance, but the Court 
was there dealing with a case where there had been a succession by sur- 
vivorship in a family governed by the Mitakshara school of law. 

So far as the estate of the donor of a power of adoption is concerned, 
the only persons whose rights of inheritance are superior to those of bis 
widow are his son, grandson, and great-grandson, during the lifetime of 
any one of whom no adoption can take place, and an heir of one of such 
persons, in whom the estate has been vested after his death. When the 
estate has vested in such heir the power is at an end, 6 and no estate is 
devested by an attempted exercise of the power. 7 

Invalid Where the power is at an end, 8 or from any other reason the adoption 

adoption. j s invalid, the adoption does not even devest the interest of the woman 
who purports to adopt. 9 

wui. Where the widow takes as devisee under a will her interest 

is not, in the absence of a provision to that effect, devested by 
an adoption. 10 

1 (1895), 21 Bom. 319, at p. 325. 205 ; Drobomoyee Chowdhrain v. 

2 At p. 324. Shama Chum Chowdhry (1885), 12 

3 (1876), 2 I. A. 154 ; 1 Mad. 69 ; Calc. 296 ; Annamah v. Mdbbu Soli 
25 W. R. C. E. 291. Beddy (1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 108 ; 

* See post, p. 198. Keshav Ramkrishna v. Govind Ganesh 

s (1891), 18 Calc. 385, at pp. 395, (1884), 9 Bom. 94. 

396. 8 Ante, pp. 130, 131. 

6 Ante, pp. 130, 131. 9 Xrishnarav Trimbak Hasabnis v. 

7 Bhoobun Moyee Debia (3us- Shankarrav Vinayak Hasabnis (1892), 
sumat) v. Ramkishore Acharj Chow- 17 Bom. 164. 

dJwy (1865), 10 M. I. A. 279, at pp. l Bepin Behan Bundopadhya v, 

311, 312 ; 3 W. K. P. C. 15, at p. 18 ; Brojo Nath Moolshopadhya (1882), 8 

Pw&ma Coomaari Deli v. Court of Calc. 357. See Sarat Chandra MuUicfo 

Wards (1881), 8 I. A. 229 ; 8 Calc. v. Kanai Loll Chunder (1903), 8 C. W. 

302 5 Whcw&miml v. VenJcatarama N. 266, at p. 270, 
Aiyan (I8S7), 14 I. A. 67; 10 Mad. 



CHAP. IV.] 



BE VESTING* 



197 



Where there is a provision in a will that the estate of the devisee 
should be devested on an adoption, and that the adopted son should 
take the property, such provision might be effectual. 1 

The interest of the widow as executrix is not devested by 
an adoption. 2 

It is submitted that an estate cannot be devested by the 
mere consent of the person in whom it is vested, 3 

It is submitted that this question depends upon the question whether 
consent can validate an adoption which is otherwise invalid. 4 If it has 
not such effect, then the devesting of an estate would, it seems, not be 
effected by the act of adoption, but only in the way provided by law for 
the transfer of property. 5 

Even if consent can operate to devest an estate a distinction might 
well be made between the cases in which the person so consenting is a 
full owner, and those in which the estate is vested in a qualified owner ; 
in which latter cases the rights of the reversioners could scarcely be pre- 
iudiced by the consent. 6 . 

Even if the then immediate reversioners should also consent, it is by no 
means clear that the rights of the persons who should become entitled 
on the succession opening out would be affected. 7 

Where the consent is necessary for the purpose of validating the adop- 
tion, as in Madras,* or Bombay,' effect would be given to it. This question 
stands on a different footing. 



i See 
Sir F 
on Hindu LW, 



TagorJs case ; 

Considerations 

p. 168; Sircar's 



Bdbu Awji v. Eatmji KrisJinarav 
(1895), 21 Bom 319, and XupcMnd 



ZMH. <**) v. JtedMon 

f i a t - P 27 r 

* 



43 



Dty (1915), 43 1. A. 12 ; 

- 20 0. W. N. 1C9; 18 
,M ^. 

in A**** v. 









; 7 Bom. L R. 405 

: 

(IV. of 1882), s. 123. 
This dwtinotwn vas not made 

in the Bombay oaseB (above, note 
v]uoh held ^ ^ egtftte oonld 

be devested by consent. bJ*g 



. 327, et pp. 331, 332 ; <ft*I 
m J^ab v. YMnu Rogte- 
Wrfft ^e;ofe (1898), 23 Bom. 250; 



198 



DEYESTING. 



[CHAP, iv, 



Impartible 
estate. 



Fraud. 



Maintenance 
of widow. 



Persons taking 
after widow. 



Dovesting of 
rights acquired 
by survivor- 
ship. 



Impartible 
estate* 



The rule prohibiting the (leveling of estates applies to 
impartible estates, the succession to which depends upon 
inheritance. 1 

The rule is not affected by the circumstance that the adop- 
tion has been delayed by fraud, even when the fraud has been 
practised by a person who has thereby procured the vesting of 
the estate in him. 2 

A widow whose estate is devested is entitled to maintenance 
from the property. 3 

An adoption prevents the succession of persons who would 
otherwise take the estate after the widow whose estate is 
devested. 4 

By adoption to a deceased member of a joint family governed 
by the Mitakshara law a person acquires such interest in the 
joint family property as he would have acquired if he had been 
natural born. 6 

Illustration. 

A and B, brothers, formed a joint Hindu family governed by the 
Mitakshara law. A died without male issue, leaving his wife, C, pregnant. 
Then B made a will directing his wife D to adopt a son, then B died. The 
next day C gave birth to a son E. Then D adopted F. F became entitled 
to share the property with E. 6 

Adoption would not, however, devest estates which had passed by 
inheritance from those who had acquired rights by survivorship. 7 

In the case of an impartible estate, the succession to which is in a 



1 See VdllanU Venkata Krishna 
Row (Rajah) v. Venkata Rama Lak~ 
shmi Narsayya (1876), 41 A. 1 ; 
1 Mad. 174 ; post, chap xvii. 

2 Bhubancswan Debz v. Nilkomul 
LaJim (1885), 12 I. A. 137; 12 Calc. 
18; S. 0. m Court below, Nvkomul 
Lahun v. Jotendro Mohun Lahuri 
(1881), 7 Calc. 178 ; 8 C. L E. 401. 

3 Jamnabcti v. Raychand Nahal- 
chand (1883), 7 Bom. 225 ; Rakhma* 
lai v. Radhabai (1868), 5 Bom. H. (X 
A. C. 181, at p 193. As to the main* 
tenanco of a widow, see ante, pp. 78, 
70. 

* As, for instance, a daughter, or 
Daughter's son. Ramkishen Surkeyl 
r. Sriwuttee Dibia (Mussummaut) 
(1824), 3 Ben. Sol. E. 367 (now 
edition, 499), 

5 See> &<irm<&dki Ganesa, Ratna- 
matyar v. Cfopofo Xfatfmtoaiyw (1880), 



7 I. A. 173, at p. 179 ; 2 Mad. 270, 
at p. 281 ; Sreeramulu v. Kristamwa 
(1902), 26 Mad. 143, at p. 152; 
Surendra Nandan Das v. Sailaja Kant 
Das Mahapatra (1891), 18 Calc. 385; 
Chandra v. Gojarabai (1890), 14 Bom. 
463, at p. 467; Vithoba v. Bapu 
(1890), 15 Bom. 110, at p. 129; 
Bachoo Harkisondas v. ManJcorebai 
(1904), 29 Bom. 51 ; 6 Bom L. K. 
208 ; affirmed on appeal (1907), 34 
I. A. 107 ; 31 Bom. 373 ; 11 C. W. N, 
769 ; 9 Bom. L. B. 646. 

6 Bachoo Harkisondas v. Mankore- 
6at (1909), 34 I. A. 107; 31 Bom, 
373 ; 11 C. W. N. 769 ; 9 Bom. L. E. 
646. 

7 Ante, pp. 193, 194. See RupcJutnd 
Hindumal v. Rakhmabai (1871), 8 
Bom. H. C. A. C. 114; Chandra v, 
Gojarabai (1890), 11 Bom. 463. 



CHAP. IV.] 



ALIENATIONS. 



joint family governed by Mitakshara law, the estate of a person to whom 
a right has accrued by survivorship may be de vested by an adoption to 
the holder whoso rights have so survived, 1 

An adopted son is not bound by unauthorized alienations 2 Power to 
made, or acts of waste committed by, the widow adopting w \d^ 
him, at the time when the property was vested in her, 3 or after 
the adoption, 4 or by the manager of the estate. 

Thus an alienation made by the widow, even before the adoption, 
oan be set aside at the instance of the adopted son, unless it be made 
under such circumstances as would bind the reversioners. 8 The Madras 
High Court 6 has held that even in the case where the transaction be not 
such as would have bound the reversioners, the alienee is entitled to retain 
possession during the lifetime or widowhood of the widow, as in the 
absence of an adoption she was competent to deal with her own personal 
interest, 7 and the rights of the adopted son do not date before the adoption. 8 
There is an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court to the same 
effect, 9 but other decisions of that Court have clearly held that the adopted 



1 See RagJiunada (Sri) v. Brozo 
Kishore (Sri) (1876), 3 I. A. 154 ; 1 
Mad. 69 ; 25 W, B. C. B. 291, where 
the estate of an undivided half-brother, 
who had succeeded to an impartible 
zemindary, was devested. This case 
was misunderstood by the Calcutta 
High Court in Rally Prosonno Ghose 
v. Oocool Chunder Hitter (1877), 2 
Calc. 295, at p. 309; see Surendra 
Nandan Das v. Sailaja Kant Das Ma- 
Tiapatra (1891), 18 Calc. 385, at p. 
395. 

2 As to her powers, see post, chap, 
xv. 

3 Kishenmunee (Ranee) v. Oodwunt 
Singh (Rajah) (1824), 3 Ben. Sel. B. 
220 (new edition, 304); Sreenath 
Roy v. Ruttunmalla Chowdhrain, Ben. 
& D. A. of 1859, 421 ; Bamundoss 
MooJserjea v. Tarinee (Mussamut) 
(1858), 7 M. I A. 169, at p. 180 ; 
Madura (Collector of) v. Moottoo 
Ramalinga Sathupathy (1868), 12 
M. I. A. 397, at p. 443 ; 1 B. L. B. 
P. C. 1, at p. 17 ; 10 W. B. (P. C.) 17, 
at p. 24; LaksJiman v. Radhalai 
(1887), 11 Bom. 609 ; Mow Narayan 
JoaU v. Balaji Raghunafh (1894), 19 
Bom. 809, at p. 815 ; Natraji Krish- 
naji v. Hari Jagoji (1871), 8 Bom. 
H. 0. A. 0. 67; Ramakrishna v. 
Tripurabai (1908), 33 Bom. 88 ; 10 



Bom. L. B. 1029 ; S. C. RamaJcrishna 
Kupposwami v. Tripurdbai (1911), 
13 Bom. L. B. 940. 

4 AmibiJca Partap Singh v. Dwarka, 
Prasad (1907), 30 All. 95; Antajt v. 
Dattaji (1893), 19 Bom. 36 ; Doorga 
Soond-uree v. Goureeper&aud, Ben. 
S. D. A. of 1856, p. 170. 

5 Cases above, notes 3 and 4. 

6 Sreeramulu v. Knstamma (1902), 
26 Mad. 143. See Sarkar's " Law of 
Adoption," pp. 417, 418. 

7 Sahodra (Mussummat Bebea) 
v Roy Jung Bdhadoor (1881), 8 
I. A. 210; 8 Calc. 224; Gobind- 
mani Dasi v. Shamlal BysaJc (1864), 
B. L. B. Sup. Vol. 48 ; W. B. 1864, C. 
B. 165 ; Periya Gaundan v. Tirumala 
GaunAan (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 206; 
Bhagavatamma v. Pampanna Gaud 
(1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 393 ; Kamava- 
dham Venkata Subbaiya v. Joysa 
Narasingappa (1866) ; 3 Mad. H. C. 
116; Ramchandra Mankeshwar v. 
Bhimrav Ravji (1877), 1 Bom. 577 ; 
Melgwappa v. Shivappa (1869), 6 Bom. 
H. C. A. C. 270 ; Mayaram Bhai- 
ram v. Motiram Govindram (1886), 2 
Bom. H. C. A. C. 313 ; Prag Das v. 
Hari Kishn (1877), 1 All 503. 

8 Ante, pp. 178, 179. 

9 Bhau&ixit v. Mwardixit, S A, 
No. 146 of 1905. 



200 ACTS OF WIDOW, [CHAP, iv. 

son can avoid tke whole transaction. 1 It is submitted that this latter 
view is correct. 

As to the limitation for a suit to set aside an alienation, see Amrita Lai 
BagcM v. Jatindra NatJi Chowdlry (1904), 32 Calc. 165. 

It is submitted that the same right to question the acts of the adoptive 
mother applies where she has succeeded to the estate as mother of a 
previously adopted son or of a natural born son. In Golindo Nath Roy v. 
Earn Kanay CJmodhry,* it was held that the adopted son could not question 
an alienation made by the widow when she held the estate as mother, 
and that case was cited with approval in KaUy Prosonno GJwse v. Gocool 
CJiunder Miller,* and in Lakshmm v. EadM>ai^ but in neither of such 
two cases did this particular question arise. Mr. Mayne 5 says, as^to 
the first-named decision, "The decision was given without any inquiry 
as to the propriety of the alienation, and was rested on the authority 
of ChundrdbiilUtfs case. 6 It does not seem to have occurred to the Court 
that a mother had no more than a limited estate, which, upon the authority 
of the case cited, was devested by the adoption. The son then came in 
for all rights which had not been lawfully disposed of, or barred, during 
the continuance of that estate." 

It is doubtful whether a widow can, when adopting, stipulate that 
her management of the property shall not be inquired into. Apparently 
she would have no such power. 7 

Assent of If at any time before the adoption all the then immediate 

reverswners. reverg j oners asS ented to the alienation or act of waste, it cannot 

be questioned by the adopted son. 8 

The adopted son is bound by all acts of the widow within 

her authority. 

A decree against a Hindu widow as representing her husband's estate 
binds her minor adopted son, and after the adoption an appeal, being 
for his benefit, must be considered as prosecuted on his behalf, even though 
he is not made a party thereto. 9 

An adopted son is not entitled to any account of the rents 

or profits of the estate rightfully received before his adoption 

by the widow or other person whose estate is devested by his 

adoption. 10 

Alienation by j n the case of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara 

father under " ^ * 



Mitakshara 
law. 



1 Ramakrishmv.Tri!purabat(m8), (1865), 10 M. I, A. 279; 3 W. 

33 Bom. 88 ; 10 Bom. L. E. 1029 ; R. . C. 15, 

Lakshmanv. Radhabai (188*7), 11 Bom. 7 See ante, pp, 186, 187. 

609 ; Moro Narayan JosU v. 3aUji 8 Eajlwteto May v. KisJioree Mohun 

Raghunath (1894), 19 Bom. 809. Mojoomdar (1805), 3 W. B, 0. R, 14. 

a (1875), 24 W. R. 0. R. 18$, Post, pp. 486, 487. 

'* (1877), 2 Calc, 295, at pp. 307, 9 Hari JSaran Moitra v. Bhubane- 

308. swari Debi (1888), 15 I A. 195 ; 16 

* (1887), 11 Bom. 609, *t p. 615. Calc. 40. 

6 " Hindu Law/' eih ed., p, 263. 10 So ante, p. 178, 



CHAP. IV.] MARRIAGE, ADOPTION. 201 

law, an adopted son is bound by an alienation made by his 
adoptive father, or by any other manager of the family, to the 
same extent as a natural son is bound. 1 

He cannot dispute an alienation made by the adoptive 
father before his adoption, 2 or any alienation of the separate 
property of such father. 

In cases governed by the Bengal school of law, an adopted Bengal school, 
son cannot dispute alienations of property, whether ancestral or 
self-acquired, made by his adoptive father. 3 

Where the adoption devests the estate of a male 
the adopted son cannot question his alienations to the extent 
of ousting a bond fide holder for value, nor can he require an 
account of rents and profits. 5 

He might, perhaps, where the proceeds of the alienation had been 
earmarked, or not spent, require the alienor to account for such proceeds. 

Adoption does not sever the tie of blood which exists between ^f * ^ d 
the adopted son and the members of his natural family. He natu 
cannot, therefore, marry in his natural family within the 
prohibited degrees, 6 nor can he take in adoption therefrom a 
boy whom he could not have adopted if he had himself remained 
in that family. 7 

A Eritrima adoption does not transfer the subject of i* J 
from his natural family. It gives him, in addition to his adoption, 
rights in that family, 8 rights of inheritance to the person (man 
or woman) actually adopting him, 9 and to no one else. 10 

1 See Rambhat v. Lafohman Chin- Uppen, Mad. S. D. 1858, p. 117 ; 

taman Maydlay (1881), 5 Bom. 630, Norton, L. C. i. 6G, referred to in 

at p. 635. As to the right of a Narasammal v. Balaramacharlu (1863), 

natural son, see post, p. 283 et seg. 1 Mad. H. 0. 420, at p, 426, note a. 

As to whether the father can by an 8 Deepoo (Mussummaut) v. Gowree- 

arrangement made at the time of shunk&r (1824), 3 Ben. SeL R. 307 

the adoption preclude the son from (new edition, 410) ; Srimth Serma V. 

disputing his acts with regard to the Radhakaunt (1796), 1 Ben. Sel. R. 15, 

property, see ante, pp. 184-186. note to p. 16 (new edition, 19, note 

* Rambhat v. LahsJshinan Chinta* to p. 21). 

man Mayalay (1881), 5 Bom. 630. 9 Durgopal Singh v. Roopun Singh 

Ante, p. 178. (1839), 6 Ben. Sel. R. 271 (new edi- 

* Ante, pp. 194r-196. tion, 340) ; Deepoo (Mmsummaut) v. 
Sco Raghunada (Sri) v. Brozo GowreeshunJcer (1824), 3 Ben. Sel. R. 

Kishoro (Sri) (1876), 3 I. A. 154, at 307 (new edition, 410). 

pp 193, 194 ; 1 Mad. 69, at pp. 83, 10 Shib Koeree (Mussamuf) v. Joo- 

84 ; 25 W. R 0. R. 291, at p. 303. gun Singh (1867), 8 W. R. C. R. 154 ; 

6 See ante, pp. 44, 45. Sreenarain Rai v. Btya Jha (1812), 

7 E.g. he cannot adopt his own 2 Ben. Sel. R. 23, at p. 27 (new 
natural brother; Mootia Moodelly vS edition, 29, at p. 34); Colkctor of 



INVALID ADOPTION. [ CHAP IV 

His sons acquire no right of inheritance to his adoptive father. 1 

If a husband and wife jointly adopt he inherits to both. If the husband 
adopts one son and the wife another, the sons inherit and offer oblations 
to each respectively. 2 

This kind of adoption is purely contractual. There is no fiction of 
a new birth into the adoptive family. The son adopted " does not lose 
his claim to his own family, nor assume the surname of his adoptive 
father ; he merely performs obsequies and takes the inheritance." 3 

He may perform the obsequies of his natural father or mother, 4 
and also those of his adopters. He would apparently be in the same 
position as to rights of survivorship in ancestral property in his adoptive 
family as a natural- born son would be. 5 

EFFECTS OF INVALID ADOPTION. 
Effect of Where there has been an adoption in form, but such adoption 

invalid . * T i , i i , i t 

adoption. is tor any reason invalid, the adopted son does not acquire any 
rights, as such, in the family of the person purporting to adopt 
him, except BO far as he may be entitled to maintenance. 

Decrees against him, and acts by him, would not bind the estate. 
The following are the cases of an invalid adoption : 
(i ) Where there is in existence a son begotten or adopted. 7 
(u.) Simultaneous adoption of more than one son. 8 
(lii.) Adoption of the same boy by two persons. 9 
(iv.) Adoption by a woman without authority. 10 
(v.) Adoption of a boy of a different primary caste. 11 
(vL) Adoption of a boy within the prohibited decrees. 12 
(vii.) Adoption of a boy where the performance of initiatory ceremonies 
or marriage before adoption makes the adoption invalid. 13 

Right of It is unsettled whether, on the adoption being set aside 

maintenance. , ** v*^4.. v? 

the boy can revert to his natural family, and whether he has 
any right of maintenance in his adoptive family. 



, 4 See Purmessur Dutt Jha (Chow- 

7 W. R, C. R. 500. dree v. Hunooman D-utt Roy (1837), 

1 Jnswant Singh (Baboo) v. Doolee 6 Ben. Sel. R. 192 (new edition 235 
Chund (1876), 25 W. R. 0. R. 255. at p. 240). 

They would, of course, possess the 5 See Sarkar's " Law of Adoption,'* 

ordinary rights of inheritance to p. 451. 

property which was vested in their * Ranjtt S^ngh (Raja) v. Ram 

father. Chandra MooJcerjee (1899), 4 C. W. N. 

2 See answers of pundits in Sree- 415. 

wrain Rat v. BJiya Jha (1812), 2 ' Ante, pp. 103, 104. 

Ben. Sol. R. 23, at p. 27 (now edition, 8 Ante, p. 149. 

29, at p. 34) ; W. Macnaghten's Ante, p. 148. 

" Hiwlti law," vol. i, p. 101. " Ante, pp. 118, 119 

* CW^M*'p "Digest," vol. i. p. Ante, p. 138. 

276, a. ; I W. J^^ton's " Hindu " Ante, pp. 138-144 

Law," p. 7& is Ante, pp. 146, 147. 



CHAP. 



INVALID ADOPTION. 



208 



111 Bengal, if not throughout India, it would noem thai a member of 
one of the regenerate classes who has been invested with the sacred thread 
in his new family, or a Sudra who has undergone the ceremony of marriage 
in his new family, cannot revert to his natural family, but he would appa- 
rently be entitled so to revert before the happening of those events, and 
would acquire no rights of maintenance in the new family, 1 at any rate 
if there had not been a valid giving and receiving. 2 Where the above- 
mentioned ceremonies have been performed, or where there is a valid 
giving and receiving, but the adoption is invalid on account of some per- 
sonal defect, such as the fact that the boy belonged to a clilYerent class from 
that of his adoptive father, there is authority that he would acquire a right 
of maintenance. 3 

It has been held in Madras that where the adoption was invalid on 
the ground of want of authority to take, there is no right of maintenance, 4 
and that decision has been followed in Bombay. 5 

The difficulty in determining the rights of a person whose adoption is 
invalid arises from the absence of direct authority on the question as to 
when (if at all) he can revert to his natural family. An invalid adoption 
does not per se destroy the adopter's rights in his natural family. 6 

Where he can so revert, and loses nothing by the infructuous adoption, 
no hardship occurs. On the other hand, where he cannot so revert, as 
when he has been fixed by religious ceremonies in the family of the adopter, 7 
or, perhaps, wherever there has been an actual giving and receiving by 
persons competent to give and receive, 8 it is right that he should, if possible, 



1 gee JRajcoomaree Dossee (Sree- 
mutty) v. Nobocoomar Mulhcfc (1856), 

1 Boulnois, 137 ; 2 Sevestre, 641, 
note, in which the Court considered 
that where there has been no power 
to take in adoption, the performance 
of the ceremonies will not prevent a 
return to the natural family. As to 
this case, G. C Sarkar said ("Law 
of Adoption," p. 424), " We have 
already seen that the performance 
of the initiatory ceremonies upon a 
person in the name of a gotra is con- 
sidered to have the effect of irre- 
vocably fixing his position in that 
gotra, hence a person upon whom 
these ceremonies have been performed 
in the name of the adoptive family 
cannot return to his own, notwith- 
standing the adoption may be invalid 
(Ruvee Bhudr v. Eoopshunker (1823), 

2 Borrodaile, 656). It is difficult to 
see why that rule would not govern 
the case of an adoption that was 
made by an unauthorized widow ; 
for the ceremonies in such a case 
also must be performed in the name 
of her husband's gotra." 

2 See Bawani Sankara Pandit v. 



Ambabay Ammal (1863), 1 Mad. H. 
0. 363 ; Lakshmappa v. Ramava 
(1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 362, at p. 397, 
3 See Bawani Sanfcara Pandit v. 
Ambabay Amvnal (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 
363, at p 367 ; Strange's " Hindu 
Law," vol. i. pp. 82, 83. In Strange's 
"Manual," para. 119, a right of 
maintenance is asserted in every case 
of an invalid adoption. "Dattaka 
Chandrika," chap. i. ss. 14, 15; G. 
C. Sarkar's "Law of Adoption," pp. 



* Bawani Sankara Pandit v. Am- 
babay Ammal (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. 363, 
followed in Vaiihdingam Mudali v. 
Murugaian (1912), 37 Mad. 529. 

5 Lakahma^fa v. Samava (1875), 
12 Bom. H. C. 364, at p. 397, followed 
in Dalpatsinghji v. Raisinghji (1915), 
39 Bom. 528 ; 17 Bom. L. B. 566. 

Vaithilingam Mudali v. Huru* 
gafon (1912), 37 Mad. 529. 

7 Rajcoomar&e Dossed (Sreemutty) 
v. Nobocoomar Mullick (185G), 1 Boul* 
137 ; Sevestre, 64, note. 

8 Sarkar's ** Law of Adoption," p, 
421, 



204 GIF!' TO PERSON AS ADOPTED, [CHAP, IV. 

receive some compensation for the loss of inheritance in both families. 



But where there is a gift of a boy to a person incompetent to receive, 
or by a person incompetent to give, the difficulty is the greater. ^ E blame 
for the invalidity of the adoption can be attached to the adoptive father, 
as where he has omitted to satisf y himself as to the competency of the donor, 
or where he has given a power, which is in law invalid, it seems right^that 
his estate should bear the burden of the maintenance. If the reversioner 
has delayed in challenging the adoption, it may also be equitable to require 
the estate to bear the burden of maintenance. Where there has been 
no such delay, and no blame can be attached to the adoptive father, it 
seems hard upon the reversioner that his interest should be affected by a 
charge which owes its origin to an unauthorized act. It is impossible to 
lay down any exact rule for adjusting these equities. The right might 
properly depend upon the circumstances of each case. 

Descendants. A right of maintenance would apparently not extend to the descendants 
of the person invalidly adopted. 1 The only texts which provide for the 
maintenance of persons invalidly adopted, except with regard to those 
belonging to a class different from that of the adopted father, 2 only contem- 
plate the expenses of the marriage being provided. 3 

Arrangement. In some cases a boy whose adoption is invalid can take 
advantage of an arrangement made at the time of his adop- 
tion, or thereafter. 

In Eungww v. Atchcmut, * the father had divided an ancestral property 
between a validly adopted son and a son whose adoption was subsequently 
held to be invalid at the instance of the son who had been validly adopted. 
The latter was required to compensate the former out of separate property 
belonging to the father. 

In Sumidra Keshav Boy v. Doorgasundari Dasseef an arrangement 
affecting the rights of two boys who were adopted simultaneously by two 
widows was enforced against such widows. 

Gift to person The invalidity of an adoption would not invalidate a gift by will 
d*^f as or otherwise to a person erroneously described as an adopted son, 6 

adopted. .. 

1 In Bawani Sarikara Pandit v, I A. 101 ; 19 Calc. 452 ; Jivani Bhai 
AmldJbay Ammal (1863), 1 Mad. H. v. Jivu Bhai (1865), 2 Mad. H. C. 
0. 363, at p. 367, the question was 462 ; Lali v. Murhdhar (1901), 24 
suggested, but not decided. All. 195 ; S. C. on appeal (1906), 33 

2 "Dattaka Chandrika," s. I, paras. I. A. 97 ; 28 All. 488 ; 10 W. N. 
14, 15. 130 ; 8 Bom. L. E. 402 ; Lalta Prasad 

8 " Dattaka Mirnansa," s. 5, paras, v. Salig Ram (1908), 31 All. 5; Murari 

45, 46 ; " Dattaka Chandrika," s. 2, Lai v. Kundan Lai (1909), tiid 339. 

para. 17 ; ss. 6, 3. In Hira Nailun v. ftadha Naikin 

4 (1846), 4 M. I. A. 1, at p. 103 ,' (1912), 37 Bom. 116 ; 14 Bom. L. K. 

7 W. K. P, 0. 57, at p. 62. 1129, a similar rule was applied to the 

6 (1892), 19 I A. 108 ; 19 Calc. will of a naikm (professional pros- 

108. titute) in favour of her adopted 

6 Bireawar MooJcerji v. Ardha daughter. 
Chunder Roy Ctowdhry (1892), 19 



CHAP. IV.] <HFT TO PEBSON TO BE ADOPTED. 



205 



unless it appear that tho validity of the adoption was a con- 
dition of, 1 or the motive for, 2 the gift. 

A gift or bequest to a described person with a direction that he should 
be adopted as a son to the donor or testator takes effect, even in the absence 
of such adoption, 3 unless it appears that the adoption was a condition of 
the gift. 4 If it be reasonably clear that the testator would not have made 
the gift had it not been for the supposed existence of the character of an 
adopted son, the Court will construe the mention of the character as imposing 
a condition precedent to the gift, 5 

Where there is a bequest or gift to an unascertained person to be 
adopted hereafter by the widow of the testator, only a person whose 
adoption is valid in law can take, even if a valid adoption be inconsistent 
with the conditions of the gift, 6 



1 Seo cases below, note 4. Man- 
jamma v. ShesJigirirao (1902), 26 
Bom. 491, at p. 496 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 
116. 

2 Fanindra Deb Raikat v. Rajeswar 
Das (1884), 12 I. A. 72; 11 Calc. 
463 ; Lah (Mussummat) v. Murlidhar 
(1906), 33 I. A. 97 ; 28 AIL 488 ; 10 
C. W. N. 130 ; 8 Bom. L. R. 402; 
Vandravan Jekisan (Patel) v, Mamlal 
Chumlal (Patel) (1890), 15 Bom. 565, 
at p. 573 ; Siddesory Dossee v. Door- 
gachurn Sett (1865), 2 Ind Jur. N. S. 
22 ; Bourke (0. C.), 360. 

3 Nidhoomoni Debya v. Saroda 
Pen-had Mookerjee (1876), 3 I. A. 
253 ; 26 W. R. C. R. 91 ; Subbarayer 
'v. Subbammal (1900), 27 L A. 162 ; 
24 Mad. 214; 4 C. W. N. 304; 2 
Bom. L. R. 982. In Monemothonanth 
Dey v. Onontwntli Dey (1865), 2 Ind. 
Jur. N. S. 24, there was an actual 
adoption of two designated persons 
in accordance with an invalid power. 
The gift was upheld. 

* Karamsi Madhowji v. Karsandas 
Natha (1896), 20 Bom. 718 ; S. C. on 



appeal (1898), 23 Bom. 271 ; Abbu v. 
Kuppammal (1892), 16 Mad. 355; 
ShamavaTioo v. Dwarkadas Vasanji 
(1878), 12 Bom. 202 ; AbJtai Cliaran 
GJiose v. Dasmom Dast (S. If.) (1871), 
6 B. L. R. 623, differing on the con- 
struction of the same will from Doss- 
money Dossee v. Prosonomoye Dossee 
(1866), 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 18 ; Man- 
jamma v. Sheshgirirao (1902), 26 Bom. 
491, at p. 496 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 116 ; 
Probodh Lai Kundu v. Harish Chandra 
Dey (1904), 9 C. W. N. 309. See 
Indian Succession Act (X. of 1865), 
ss. 113-123, applied to certain Hindu 
wills by the Hindu Wills Act (XXI. of 
1870). 

6 Siddessory Dossee v. Doorgachurn 
Sett (1865), 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 22; 
Bourke (0. C.), 360. 

6 See Surendra Kcshav Roy v. 
Doorgasundari Dassee (1892), 19 I. A. 
108 ; 19 Calc. 513 ; S. C. m Court 
below (1886), 12 Calc. 686, where 
the bequest was to two boys to be 
simultaneously adopted as sous to the 
testator. 



CHAPTER V. 

PARENT AND CHILD (continued). 

DUTIES AND EIGHTS OP FATHBE, 

Maintenance. 

Maintenance IT is the duty of a Hindu father to maintain his minor sons l 
of children. unnuariod daughters, provided they are not interested in 



property sufficient for their support, or are not otherwise capable 
of maintaining themselves. 2 

It is his duty to provide the marriage expenses of his 
daughters, and to cause his son to be educated in accordance 
with his station in life. 

There is no obligation to maintain an adult son, 3 except, perhaps, 
when he is suffering from a disease which prevents him from maintaining 
himself. 4 

With the exception of a case in Bengal, where it was held that a suit 
would lie by the mother of an illegitimate child against the putative 
father for the maintenance of the child, 5 and of a ease in Madras where 
a decree was given at the instance of an illegitimate son, 6 the Reports 
do not show any successful cases of proceedings in Civil Courts against 
a father for the maintenance of his child. It may be doubtful whether the 



1 Whether natural bom, or adopted. (1904), 32 Calc. 479. In that 

2 "Manu," chap. ix. para. 108; decision the learned judges relied 
chap. xi. paras. 9, 10 ; Colebroo&e's upon Run Murdun Syn (Chuoturya) 
"Digest," vol. ii. pp. 112, 113; vol. v. Sahub Purhnlad 8yn (1857), 7 M. 
iii. p. 5 ; Strange's " Hindu Law," I. A. 18 ; 4 W. R. P. C. 132, which 
vol. i. p. 67. was a suit claiming maintenance out 

3 Ammakannu v. Appu (1887), 11 of a deceased father's estate. The 
Mad. 91 ; Premchand Peparah v. judges go on to say, " But apart from 
HulasJichand Peparah (1869), 4 B. L. the Hindu law, we should think that, 
R. App. 23 ; 12 W R. C. R. 494 ; upon general principles, the dofen- 
Ramchandra Sakharam Vagh v. Sakha- dant, having begotten the child, is 
ram Oopal Vagh (1877), 2 Bom. 346, bound to provide for its maintenance, 
at p. 350. if that is necessary." It is submitted 

* See Prewchand Peparah v. Hu- that there are no grounds for this 

laMkomti P$parah, 4 B. L R. App. general proposition. 

23 ; 12 W, & CL B. 494. 6 Kuppa v. 8ingaravefa (1885), 8 

Had. 32& 



CHAP. V.] MAINTENANCE OF DAWHTEK. 207 

duty can be enforced in a Civil Court, 1 but it is submitted that if an illegiti- 
mate son can enforce such right, legitimate sons are equally entitled. 

It is clear that even if there be a right to maintenance, separate main- 
tenance can only be awarded under very special circumstances. 2 

On the death of the father the maintenance of unmarried 
daughters, and the expenses of their marriage, must be provided 
out of his property. 3 

Although on her marriage a daughter ceases to belong to her 
father's family, 4 and must first look to her husband 5 and his dau s hter - 
family 6 for her maintenance, there is a moral duty to maintain 
a married daughter who is without means, and who is unable 
to obtain support from her husband, or after his death from his 
family. This duty is not enforceable during the father's life- 
time, and it has been held that it is not enforceable against his 
property after his death. 7 

Where a son or other heir is excluded from inheritance on Persons 
account of disability, he is entitled to maintenance for himself fnhentaiic 
and his family out of the property which he would have inherited. 8 

A father may be compelled, by proceedings under the Proceedings 
Criminal Procedure Code, 9 to maintain his legitimate or illegiti- ^St? 111181 
mate child, of whatever age he or she may be, who is unable to 
maintain himself or herself. 

As to the rights of children to maintenance out of co- 
parcenary property, see post, pp. 234, 285, 271. 

A Hindu is bound to provide for the maintenance of his illegitimate 
minor 10 illegitimate sons n by Hindu mothers. 13 sons " 



1 K. K. Bhattacharya (" Law of (1898), 23 Bom. 291. See, however, 
the Joint Hindu Family," pp. 282, Mokhada Dassee v. Nundo Latt JElaldar 
283) repudiates, however, any dis- (1901), 28 Calc. 278, at p. 288 ; 5 C. 
tinction between a moral and a legal W. N. 297, at p. 300 Macnaghten's 
obligation, except in tho Bengal " Hindu Law," vol. ii. chap. ii. case 10. 
school. 8 " Mitakshara," chap, xi & 10, 

2 See SJiavatri (llata) v. Narayanan para. 5 ; " Dayabhaga," chap v. 
Nambudiri (Ilata) (1863), 1 Mad. H. C. paras. 11, 14-16; "Smnti Chan- 
372. drika," chap. v. paras. 10-14, 20. 

8 See Mangal (Bai) v. JRukhmini 9 Act V. of 1898, chap, xxxvi. 

'(Bai) (1898), 23 Bom. 291; Tuhha 10 Ntlmoney Stnffh Deo v. Baneahur 

v. Oopal Rai (1884), 6 All. 632; (1878), 4 Calc 91. 

Ijlacnaghtcn's " Hindu Law," vol. ii, 1: f Ghana JZanta Mohanta v. Oereli 

<3foap. ii. case 10 ; " Vyavastha Bar- (1904), 32 Oalo. 479 (see ante, p. 206) ; 

Wa," 2nd ed., p. 370. Kuppa v. Bingaqtvela (1885), 8 Mad. 

"* Ante, p. 60. 325. 

, p. 76. ls There is no text of Hindu Law 

78* ?9. under which an illegitimate son of a 

^ fuKfmini (Bat) B[in4u by a woman wfeo is nx>fr a 




208 



ILLEGITIMATE SONS. 



[CHAP, v, 



Obedience a 
condition. 



After his death his illegitimate sons are entitled to main- 
tenance out of his estate, or out of property in which he was a 
coparcener, 1 whether impartible or not, 2 if he was a member of 
one of the regenerate classes. 3 If he was a Sudra they -ire only 
so entitled in case they are not entitled to inherit, 4 or to 1 a share 
on partition. 

Under the Bengal school of law, this right against the father 
ceases on the sons attaining majority, 5 but it is submitted that 
after the father's death there is a right against his property, 
even if they are adults. 6 Under the Mitakshara school, they 
continue entitled to maintenance out of coparcenary property, 7 
whether impartible or not, and also out of self-acquired property 
which was owned by the father ; but the right does not descend 
to their children. 8 

It has been said by the Allahabad High Court in a case 9 governed by 
the Mitakshara school of law, " Obedience to the head of the family, not 
the age of the illegitimate descendant, or his capacity to earn his own 



Hindu can claim maintenance, and 
in none of the reported cases has 
maintenance ever been awarded to 
an illegitimate son who was not a 
Hindu by birth; Lingappa Goundan 
v. Esudasan (1903), 27 Mad. 13, at 
p. 15. See Addoyto Churn Doss v. 
Woojan Beebee (1879), 4 C. L. R. 164. 

1 Roshan Singh v. Balwant Singh 
(1899), 27 I. A. 51 ; 22 All. 191 ; 4 
C. W. N. 353 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 529. 

2 Run Murdun Syn, (Chuotorya) v. 
Sahub Purhulad Syn (1857), 7 M. I. 
A. 18 ; 4 W. R. P. C. 132 ; Muttu- 
sawmy Jagaiera Yettappa Kaicker v. 
Vmcataswara Yettaya (1868), 12 M. 

I. A. 203; 3 B. L. R. P. C. 15; 11 
W. R. P. C. 6; S. C. on remand, 
Coomara Yettapa Naikar v. Verika- 
teswara Yettia (1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 
405 ; Pandaiya Tetaver v. Puli Tela- 
ver (1863), 1 Mad H. C. 478, at p. 
482. 

3 Eun Murdun Syn (Chuotorya) v, 
Sahub Purhulad Syn (1857), 7 M. I. 
A. 18; 4 W. R, P. C. 132; Parichat 
(Rajah) v. Zalim Singh (1877), 4 L 
A. 159 ; 3 Calc. 214, 

* Run, Murdun Syn (Chuotorya) v. 
Sahub PurMad Syn (1857), 7 M. I. 
A. 18; 4 W R. P. 0, 132 ; Indenm 



Valungypooly Taver v. Ramascwmy 
Pandia Talaver (1869), 13 M. L A. 141, 
at p. 159 ; 3 B. L. R. P. C. 1, at p. 4 ; 
12 W. R. P. C. 41, at p. 43 ; Muttu- 
sawmy Jagavera Yettappa Naiclcer v. 
Vencataswara Yettaya (1868), ]2 M- 
L A. 203 ; 2 B. L. R. P. C. 15 ; 11 
W. R. P. C. 6. 

5 Ntlmoney Singh Deo v. Baneshur 
(1878), 4 Calc. 91. 

6 See " Dayabhaga," chap. ix. 
para. 28. 

7 HargoUnd Knari v. Dharam 
Singh (1884), 6 AIL 329; Pershad 
Singh v. Mvhesree (Ranee). (1821), 3 
Ben. Sel. R. 132 (new edition, 176) ; 
Rahi v. Gomnda Valad Teja (1876), 
1 Bom. 97; "Mitakshara," chap. i. 
s. 12, para. 3 ; " Dayabhaga," chap. ix. 
para. 28; " Vyavahara Mayukha," 
chap. iv. s. 4, para. 30. These texts 
are founded on a passage of "Vri- 
haspati," which confines the right to 
the case where there is no other 
offspring. 

8 Roshan Singh v. Balwant Singh 
(1899), 27 1 A. 51 ; 22 AIL 191 ; 
4 C. W. N. 253 ; 2 Bom. L. R. 629 ; 
S. C. in Court below (1896), 8 All. 253. 

9 Hargdbind Kuari v. Dharam 
Singh (1884), 6 All. 329, at p. 335. 



CHAP, V.] ILLEGITIMATE SONS, 209 

livelihood, is the test by which, under Hindu law, the continuance of 
the right to receive maintenance must be decided. Till the illegitimate 
sons reach full age, this test cannot be applied, but thereafter it cannot 
be ignored. What constitutes docility or disobedience, in the sense of 
the texts, is a question the answer of which is not easy ; but we think 
that the true answer is indicated in a Vaiwstha, translated as No. 2, Book I. 
chapter vi. section 2, of Messrs. West and Buhler's collection (ed. 1878, 
p. 276), and we think that, on attaining full age, the respondents must, 
as a condition of receiving maintenance from the estate of Mauji Lai 
(the father), render to the head of the family such reasonable service as 
is ordinarily rendered by cadets of a family in that station of life to which 
the parties belong," 

" The Court would presume the natural son qualified to receive main- 
tenance, unless the opposite party could show what, in the contemplation 
of the law, is a legal disqualification." 1 

The right of maintenance is not affected by the child being the result 
of a casual connection, 2 or by the connection between the parents being 
adulterous. 3 

The maintenance of an illegitimate son may, like the maintenance 
of other persons entitled thereto, 4 be secured on the property out of 
which he is entitled to be maintained. 5 

In a Madras case 6 it was said, " In determining the rate of maintenance, Amount ot 
an illegitimate member of a family, who is not entitled to inherit, can be maintenance, 
allowed only a compassionate rate of maintenance, and he cannot claim 
maintenance on the same principles and on the same scales as disqualified 
heirs and females who have become members of the family by marriage. 
In fixing, however, the compassionate rate of maintenance for the 
plaintiff, regard, no doubt, should be had to the interest of his deceased 
father in the joint family property and the position of his mother's family." 

The right of an illegitimate daughter to maintenance under illegitimate 
the Hindu law has been denied, 7 daughter. 

/ A Hindu is morally, although not legally, bound to maintain Maintenance 
the widow of his son, even " if he has no fund with the disposal alughter^n- 
of which his son, if alive, could interfere, and if he has inherited law ' 
nothing from his son, and has not had his rights in any property 
enlarged by his son's death." 8 



e's " Hindu Law," vol. ii. * Ante, p. 89. 

p. 71. 5 Ananfhaya v. Vislmu (1893), 17 

2 Sec Muttusamy Jagawra Yettapa Mad. 100. 

Naikar v. Venkatasubha Yettta (1865), Gopalasami CheUi v. Antna- 

2 Mad. H. 0. 293 ; S. 0. on appeal clielam OUtii (1903), 27 Mad. 32, 

(1808), 12 M. I. A. 203 (see p. 220) ; at pp. 36, 37. 

2 B. L. B. R C. 15 (see p. 20) ; 11 7 Parvati v. Oanpatrao Baled 

W. E. P. 0. 6 (see p. 9). (1893), 18 Bom. 177, at p. 183. It 

3 Viraramuthi Udayan v. Singa- was not necessary to decide the point 
ravelu (1877), 1 Mad. 306 ; Rahi v. in that case. 

fSfyvfatda Valad Teja (1875), 1 Bom. 8 Meenakshi Ammal v. Rama Aiyat 

" l Q7;&MbramaniaM'udativ. Valu (1910), (1912), 37 Mad. 396 ; Jarik* v. Nand 

, 34 Mad, 0& Ram (1888), 11 All. 194, at pp. 

HJi, P 



210 



DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. 



[CHAP. V. 



Whore her husband had been a coparcener, she is entitled to be main- 
tained out of the coparcenary property l although she may have lived apart 
from him. 2 

The fact that the father-in-law had sold coparcenary property to pay 
his debts does not render him liable for his daughter-in-law's maintenance. 3 

After his death, the persons who inherit his property, or 
whose interest in property is enlarged by his death, are legally 
bound to maintain his daughter-in-law, if chaste, 4 out of the 
property which they have so inherited, or in which their interest 
has been enlarged, whether the property be coparcenary or self- 
acquirecl. 5 

There is a difference of opinion as to whether this right is independent of 
any provisions made in the will of the father-in-law. 6 



198-200 ; Ammakannu v. Appu 
(1887), 11 Mad. 91 ; Kalu v. Kashi* 
bai (1882), 7 Bom. 127 ; Ganga Bat 
v. Sitaram (1876), 1 AIL 170; KM* 
ramani Dasi v. Kashinath Das 
(1868), 2 B. L. R. A. C. 15; S. 0. 
Kashcenath Das v. KJiettur Monee 
Dossee, 9 W. R. C. R. 413, differing 
from Koodee Monee, Debea v. Tarra- 
cfiand Chuclcerbutty (1865), 2 W, R. 
C. R. 134 ; S. C. on appeal KJiettur 
Monee Dossee v. Kasheenath Doss 
(1868), 10 W. R. F. B. 89 ; Rujjo- 
money Dossee v. Shibchunder 
Mullick (1864), 2 Hyde, 103; Ya- 
munabai v. Manubai (1899), 23 Bom. 
608, at p. 609; 1 Bom. L. R. 95; 
Adhibai v. Cursandas Nafhu (1886), 
11 Bom. 199, at p. 207; Hema 
Kooeree (Mnssamut) v. Ajoodhya 
Persad (1875), 24 W. R. C. R. 474. 
In OhandrabJiagabai v. Kashinath 
(1866), 2 Bom. H C. 323, the 
father-in-law was held liable for his 
daughter-in-law's maintenance, but 
that decision was differed from in 
Savitribai v. Lux^miba^ (1878), 2 
Bom. 573, at pp. 583, 584. See Debur 
Bamnath Roy Chowdhry v. Arnee Kally 
Delia (Sreemutty) W. R. 1864, C. R. 
177. 

1 Lakslman Ramchandra Joshi v. 
Satyabnamabai (1877), 2 Bom. 494, at 
p. 521, see post, pp. 234, 235, 271. 

2 SwampaUi Bangaranma v. Suram- 

Brambaze (1908), 31 Mad. 338. 
8 Ganga, Bai v. Sitaram (1876), 1 
All. 170, at p. 177. 
4 Koodee Monee Dabee v. Tarra 



CJiand Chuckerbutty (1865), 2 W. R. 
G. R. 134. 

6 Siddessury Dassee v. Janardan 
SarJcar (1902), 29 Calc. 557 ; 6 C. W. 
N. 530; Jan fa v. Nandram (1888), 
11 All. 194 ; Kamini Dassee v. Chan- 
dra Pole Mundle (1889), 17 Calc. 
373 ; Yamundbai v. Manubai (1899), 
23 Bom. 608; 1 Bom. L. R. 95; 
Koodee Monee Dabee v. Tarra Chand 
Chucberbutty (1865), 2 W. R. C. R. 
134. See Rangammal v. Echammal 
(1898), 22 Mad 305, at p. 307 ; Devi 
Persad v. Gunwanti Koer (1895), 22 
Calc. 410, at p. 417; AdJiibai v. 
Cursandas Natiiu (1886), 11 Bom. 
199 ; Swampalli Bangaramma v. 
Surampatti Jtrambaze (1908), 31 Mad. 
338 ; Rujjomoney Dossee "v. Shibchun- 
der MuUiclc (1864), 2 Hyde, 103, at 
pp. 104, 105; Jolly's "History of 
the Hindu Law," pp 134, 135 ; West 
and Buhler, 3rd ed,, pp. 245-252. 
Contra Ammakannu v. Appu (1887), 
11 Mad. 91 ; Komulmuni Dasee v. 
Bodhnarain Mujmooadar (1823). 2 
Macn. H. L. 119; " Smriti Chand- 
rika " (Krishnasawmi Iyer's transla- 
tion), chap, xi s. 1, para. 34 ; Mitak- 
shara on Subtraction of Gift, cited 
Strange's " Manual," para. 209* 

6 Parvati (Bai) v. Tarwadi Dola* 
tram (1900), 25 Bom. 263; 2 Bom. 
L. R. 894. Rangammal v. Echammal 
(1898), 22 Mad. 305, at p. 307, denies 
the right of the daughter-in-law. 
Such right is asserted by In the goods 
ofGobinda Chandra Babajee (1913), 17 
C. W. N. 1141. 



CHAP. V.] IMPARTIBLE PROPERTY. 211 

It is submitted that the father-in-law can deal with his separate property 
by will independently of any claim by his daughter-in-law. 

The daughter-in-law does not lose her right by declining to reside in 
her father-in-law's house. 1 

In a Bengal case 2 maintenance was allotted by an Implied contract to a Son-in-law, 
son-in-law, who had lived in his father-in-law's house. 

Where the property of the father is impartible, and subject impartible 
to the law of primogeniture, sons, even if adult, and capable of 
earning subsistence, are entitled to maintenance where the 
Mitakshara school of law applies. 3 They are also so entitled 
after his death, as against their brother or the person in posses- 
sion, 4 whether, it is submitted, they are governed by the Bengal 
or the Mitakshara school. Their descendants have no such 
right. 5 

Grandsons have not, as such, any right to be maintained by Grand- 

children. 

their grandfather, 6 but apparently they have a right to be 
maintained out of his property if unable to maintain themselves, 
and granddaughters must be so maintained until marriage. 7 

The marriage expenses of a granddaughter have been held to be properly 
payable out of her deceased grandfather's estate. 8 

A Hindu is bound to support his father and mother if they Maintenance 
are in want. After his death his property is liable for their of P arents - 
maintenance. 9 

In a case where - the father had murdered his own father and was 

1 Siddessttry Dassee v. J (Martian PartJiasaradhi Appa Row (1902), 30 
SarJcar (1903), 29 Calc. 557 5 0. W. I. A. 14 ; 26 Mad. 202 ; 8 C. W. N. 
N. 530. See ante, p. 81. 105. 

2 Govind Rani Dasi v. Radha Kalu v. JKasJiibai (1882), 7 Bom. 
Battabh Das (1910), 15 C. W. N. 205. 127 ; Manmahim Dasi v. JBalak Chan* 

a Hinmateing Becharaing v. Gan* dra Pandit (1871), 8 B. L. B. 22 ; 15 

patsing (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 94; W. B. 0. B. 498. 
Ramchandra SaJcharam Vagh v. 8ak- 7 Sec Chumun Loll v. Gunput Loll 

haram Gopal Vagh (1877), 2 Bom. 346. (Lalla) (1871), 16 W. B. C. B. 52. 

4 MalliJcarjuna Prasada Nayudu * Ramcoomar Mitter v. Ichamoyi 
(Raja Yarlagadda) v. Durga Prasada Da$i (1880), 6 Calc. 36 ; 60. L. B. 
Nayudu (Raja Yarlagadda) (1900), 429. 

27 I. A. 151 ; 24 Mad. 147 ; 5 0. W. 8 SuVbarayana v. Subbakka (1884), 

N. 74; 2 Bom. L. B 945. As to 8 Mad. 236; Strange's " Manual,'* 

maintenance from samnjams, soo para. 209; Macnaghten's "Hindu 

Madliavrav Manohar v. Atmaram Law," vol. ii. pp. 113-115 ; Sircar's 

Kes'hav (1890), 15 Bom. 519. " Vyavastha Darpana," 2nd ed., p. 

5 See Nilmony Sing Deo v. Hingoo 375 ; " Mami," chap. viii. para. 389 ; 
Loll Singh Deo (1879), 5 Calc. 256. Strangers "Hindu Law," vol. ii. pp. 
As to a grant in lieu of maintenance 83, 90. 

see Raja Jee Jfohadvr Cfaru (Raja) v. 



212 MAINTENANCE OF PAREN1S. [CHAP. V. 

therefore excluded from inheritance, 1 his son was held to be liable for 
his maintenance. 2 

A stepson is not obliged to maintain his stepmother out of 
his self-acquired property, 3 but he must maintain her out of 
family property. 

A grandmother and sister (until marriage, and after marriage 
if destitute 4 ) are also to be maintained out of the property of 
a Hindu after his death. 6 

A mother does not apparently lose her right to maintenance by un- 
chastity, 6 except in Bengal. 7 

It is also the right and duty of a Hindu to perform the funeral cere- 
monies and other ceremonies in commemoration of his father and mother, 8 
grandparents, and great-grandparents. 

Duty of heir, An heir is legally bound to provide) out of thu ostato which 
descends to him maintenance for such pomms as the person 
from whom he inherits was legally or morally bound to support. 10 

" The obligation of an heir to provide out of the estate, which dcwccndfl 
to him, maintenance for certain persons whom the ancestor was legally 
or morally bound to maintain, is a legal as well as a moral obligation, 
for the estate is inherited subject to the obligation of providing such 
maintenance/' u 

There is a difficulty in determining whet her the person claiming main- 
tenance is one whom the lato proprietor was morally bound to maintain. 13 
The texts lay down generally that he who inherits a person^ property 
is bound to maintain those whom that person was himself bound to maintain, 



1 Post, p, 373. . Das (1868), 2 B. L. B. A. 0. 15, at 

2 Ntlmadhab Miller v. Jotindra p. 34 ; 9 W. B. 0. E. 413, at p. 422. 
Nat* Milter (1913), 37 0. W. N. See MoMiada JDtuwe v. Nuncio Latt 
341. Maldar (1001), 28 Calc. 278, at p. 

3 Dai/a (Bai) v. Nathi C/ovindlal 288 ; 5 0. W. N. 207, at p. 300. 
(1885), 9 Bom. 279. Janlci v. Nand Item (1888), II AIL 

* Strange's "Hindu Law," vol. ii. 194, at p 201; Mujjowoncy J)oaaee 

p. 83 Soc, however, Manqctl (Bui) v. v. flhtbchunder Midlick (1804), 2 

RvWimim (Bai) (1898), 23 Bom. 291. Bydo, 303. Thi applies to Kliojaa, 

6 Sircar's "Vyavastha Darpana," Raaliid KurtnaU v, tfh&banw (1904)* 

2nd cd., p 370. 29 Bom. 85. 

6 See VaU v. Qattya (1882), 7 u JKhelmmani Daxi v. KaeMmth 
Bom 84, at p. 90. Dae (1808), 2 B. L. K A. 0. 1& at 

7 Sircar's '* Vyavastlia Darpana," p. 38 ; 9 W* E. 0. E. 413, at p. 49& 
2nd ed. ? p. 371, note, Seo 'JParungime Dowee v. Qhowdhry 

8 SundarjiDamjiv*D(Mai(m4), Dwarlcanath Mutant (1873), 20 W* 
29 Bom, 316; Bora. L. K. 1052; B. 0. E. 196. 

Vrijbhukandas v. Parvali (Bai) (1907), J3 JKamini Dame v, Chandra Pole 

32 Bom, 20; 9 Bom. L. R. J187, Mundk (1889), 17 Calc. 373, at p, 

9 , w$dar$ Damji v* Dabibai (1904), 377. Boo Sircar's " Vyavastlia Bar- 

29 Born; he j 6 Bom, L, R, 1052. pana," 2nd ed, p. 370 ; G, 

v. KathiiMttt " Hindu Law," p. 238, 



CHAP. V.] GUARDIANSHIP. 313 

including the persona disqualified from inheritance and those dependent 
on them. 1 

As to when maintenance is a complete charge upon property, 
see the cases relating to the maintenance of a widow, ante, 
pp. 89-98. 

As fco the fixing of the amount of maintenance, see ante, pp. 86, 87. 

Guardianship. 

A Hindu father is recognized as the legal guardian of all his Bight qf 
male, and of his female unmarried, minor legitimate children, 2 * lp ' 

and is as such entitled to the custody of their persons and 
property. 

The adoptive father acquires the same right, even as against 
the natural father. 3 

An adult 4 Hindu father can, by word or writing, nominate Testamentary 
a guardian for his children after his death, and he is unrestricted guar ian ' 
in the choice of such guardian. He may exclude even the mother 
from the guardianship. 5 

He cannot during his lifetime substitute another person to be 
guardian in his place. 6 

Although the right of the father to the guardianship of his children 

1 Lakshman Ramchandra v. Saras- L. R 171, at p. 191 ; S. C. Nogend.ro 
vatibai (1875), 12 Bom. H. C. 69, at Ohundro Mittro v. Kislicmoondery 
p. 77 ; " Vyavahara Mayukha," chap. Dossee (Srcemutty), 19 W. R. C. R 133, 
iv. s. 4, para. 30 ; s. 9, para. 22 ; s. at p. 139 ; Laksmiblw v. Shridar 
11, paras. 1, 3, 9, 12 ; " Mitakshara," Vasudev Takle (1878), 3 Bom. 1. 
chap. ii. s. 1, paras. 7, 12, 13, 20, 21 ; 4 By not incorporating s. 47 of the 
s. 10, paras. 5, 15. The Rishi texts Indian Succession Act (X. of 1865) 
on the subject are collected in R. 0. in the Hindu Wills Act (XXI. of 
Mitra's " Law of Joint Property," pp. 1870), the Legislature has apparently 
66-68. indicated its opinion that the privilege 

2 Mo&oond Lai Singh v. Nobodip enjoyed by adult Hindu fathers should 
Chunder Singha, (1898), 25 Calc. 881, not be extended to fathers who are 
at p. 884 ; 2 C. W. N. 379, at p. 381 ; themselves minors. 

In the matter of Prarikrishna, Surma 6 Ptrthe& Lai Jha (Soobah) v. 

(1882), 8 Calc. 969; S. C. Parame- Doorga Lai JJia (Soolah) (1867), 7 

shwari Surma v. Empress, 11 C. L. R. W. R. C. R. 73, at p. 75 See Act 

6 ; Macnaghten's " Hindu Law," vol. VUL of 1890, s. 6 ; BwAMal Manji 

i. ed. 1829, chap. vii. p. 103; In v. Murarji Premji (1907), 31 Bom. 

the matter of Himnauth Bose (1862), 413; 9 Bom. L. R. 553 ; MaJiab- 

1 Hyde, 111. See Act VIIL of 1890, leshwar v. JKamchandm (1913), 15 

s. 19. Bom, L. R. 882. 

3 Sree Narain Mitter v. Ktshen- 6 Besant v. Narayaniah (1914), 41 
soondery Dassee (Sreemutty) (1893), I. A. 314 ; 38 Mad. 807; 18 C. W. N. 
L A. Sup. Vol. 149, at p. 163 ; U B. 1089 ; 16 Bom. L, R. 625. 



214 



GUARDIANSHIP, 



[CHAP. v. 



Eight o 
mother, 



Illegitimate 
children. 



rfntment 



Court. 



has 'been recognized by the legislature, it is one which is given to him 
for the benefit of his children, and should he at any time show himself 
unfit to be guardian the Court will place the custody of his children in a 
more suitable person. 1 

Ample provision is made in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for 
the purpose of protecting the persons and property of infants, and although 
the Court will have regard to the principle that it is generally for the 
benefit of infants that they should remain in the custody of their parents, 
and will also have regard to the personal law of the infant in question, 
the Courts will, in appointing a guardian, consider only the physical, moral, 
and religious welfare of the infant. 3 

On the death of the father, or in his absence, 3 or in case of 
bis having lost the right of guardianship, and in the absence of 
a valid appointment by him, the mother is 'entitled to the 
guardianship of her minor children. 4 

It has been held that under the Mithila law, the mother is entitled to 
the guardianship even during the lifetime of the father. 5 

A mother would ordinarily be entitled to the guardianship 
of her illegitimate child, and the father would against the 
mother have no right of guardianship. 6 

A parent is liable to be superseded by the appointment of a 
guardian under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards 
Act, 1890, but the Court cannot make such appointment when 
the father is alive, unless he is unfit to be guardian. 7 



1 See Act VIII. of 1890, s. 19. 

2 See Act VIII. of 1890, s. 17 ; 
Mokoond Lai Singh v. Nobo&ip Chun- 
dcr SitigJia (1898), 25 Calc. 881 ; 2 
C. W. N. 379 ; BUkuo Koer (Musst.) 
v. Chamela Koer (Mitsst) (1897), 2 
C. W. N. 191 ; Pollard v. Rouse (1910), 
33 Mad. 288; Tola Ram v. Earn 
Charan (1910), 33 All. 222 ; Re Gulbai 
(1907), 32 Bom. 50. 

3 See Moalioosoodun Mookerjee v. 
Jadttb Chunder Banerjee (1865), 3 
W R. 0. R. 194. 

4 Pirthee Lai JJia (Soolah) v. 
Doorga Lai Jha (Soobah) (1867), 7 
W. R, a R. 73, at p. 75 ; Earn DJiun 
Doss v. Ram Ruttun Dutt (1868), 10 
W, R. G. R. 425, at p. 426 ; S. Namase- 
vay&m PiUay v. Annamai Ummal 
(1869), 4 Mad. H. C. 339, at p. 343 ; 
Xooldeep ^arain v. Rajbunsee Kowur 
(1847), 7 Ben. Sel. R. 395 (2nd 



edition, p 467); Kaulesra v. Jora 
Kasaundan (1905), 28 AIL 233 ; Mac- 
naghten's "Hindu Law," ed. 1829, 
vol. i. chap. vii. p. 103 ; and vol. n 
chap. vn. case iv. p. 205. 

5 Jusso&a Kooer v. Nettya Lall 
(Lallah) (1879), 5 Calc, 43. There 
does not seem to bo any other 
authority to the same effect. In 
Pirthee Lai Jha (Baobab) v. Doorga 
Lai Jha (Soooah) (1867), 7 W. R. 
0. R. 74, where the parties were 
governed by the Mithila school, a testa- 
mentary guardian, who was appointed 
by the father, was preferred to the 
mother, 

6 In the matter of Saithri (1891), 
16 Bom. 307, at p. 317 ; Venkamma 
v. Savitramma (1888), 12 Mad. 67, 
at p. 68 ; King v. Nagapen (1814), 
2 Mad. N. 0. 91. 

7 Act VIII. of 1890, s. 19. 



CHAP, V.] GUARDIANSHIP, 215 

Failing the father and mother, the Hindu law prescribed a succession Other 
to the right of guardianship. The elder brother, the elder half-brother, rolt ^ ions ' 
the paternal relations, and failing them the maternal kinsmen were pre- 
ferred in order of priority ; * but their right was not, as in the case of the 
father or mother, an absolute one, 2 In appointing a guardian a C'ourt 
will be guided to some extent by this order of succession, 3 but it would 
not give the same effect to the claims of these relatives as it would to the 
claim of a father or mother. 

As to the guardianship of a female minor after marriage, see ante, 
p. 66. 

If tho minor is a member of a joint Hindu family, the Guardianship 
manager of the family is entitled, to the management of the of P r P erty * 
joint property ; 4 but if the family be a divided one, the mother 
is, failing the father, entitled to the custody of the minor's 
property; 5 and even if the family be joint, she would apparently 
be so entitled, so far as the minor's separate property, if any, 
is concerned. Where the mother is manager of her minor 
child's property, her position necessarily requires her to seek 
the advice of her husband's relations, 6 and she would often 
strengthen her position by so doing, but the law cannot 
compel her to seek, or to act under, their advice, if she wishes 
to take the whole responsibility upon herself. - 

A father may lose his right to the guardianship of his children LOSS of rights 
by a persistent course of ill-treatment, by conduct tending to 
their corruption, or by acting in a way injurious to their morals 
or interest. 7 He may lose the right by waiver, as whore he has 
permitted another person to maintain and educate them, and 
it would be detrimental to their interests to alter the mode of 
their maintenance in course of their education, 8 but except in 

1 Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," vol. v. Doolwth Singh, N.-W. P. S. D. A., 
L pp. 103, 104; Strange's "Hindu 13th April, 1844, it was held that 
Law," vol. i. p. 71. an elder brother, if not separated, 

2 Kristo Kissvr Neoghy v. Kader- could act as guardian. 

moye Doasee (1878), 2 0. L. B. 583. 6 Maonaghten's " Hindu Law," ed. 

See BhiJeuo Koer (Musst.) v. GTuzmela 1829, vol. i. chap, vii p. 103 ; and 

Koer (Musst.) (1897), 2 C. W. N. 191 ; see Sir E. H. East's Notes, Morley's 

Thayammal v. Kuppanna Koundan " Digest," vol. ii. p. 60. 

(1914), 38 Mad. 1125. 7 See Act VIII. of 1890, s. 

8 See Strange's " Hindu Law," 19 (&). 

vol. i. p. 71 ; Act VIII. of 1890, s. 8 Mo&oond Lai Singh v. Nobodip 

17 Lachmi Narain v Balaram Sabai Chunder Singha (1898), 25 Calc. 881 ; 

(1917), 2 Pat. L, J. 190. 2 C. W. N. 379; In the matter of 

* Post, pp. 270, 271. Joshi Assam (1895), 23 Calc. 290. 

5 Sir 35. H. East's Notes, Morley's See Modkoosoodun Mookerjee v. Jadub 

" Digest," vol. u. p. 50 ; West and Chunder Banerjee (1865), 3 W. B. 0. 

Biihler, 2nd ed., p. 88. In Motee Singh B. 194. 



216 BEMARRIAGE, [CHAP. V s 

that event he can revoke any arrangement which he has made 
as to their custody or education. 1 

A mother may also for similar reasons lose her right. 2 
Change of it is submitted that a father or mother does not lose his or 

religion. 

her right by a change of religion. 3 

Loss of caste. Under tho Hindu law loss of caste apparently involved a loss of the 
right of guardianship of the person and property of minors ; 4 but since 
the passing of Act XXI. of 1850, such right of guardianship ceased to 
be affected by loss of caste. 5 Where, however, the appointment of a 
guardian is made by a Court, the fact that the person proposed is out 
of caste would be a matter for consideration. 6 

Recluse. Under the Hindu law a father or other guardian might lose his right 

by permanently emigrating, becoming a recluse or entering a religious 
order. 7 

Hindu Hindu widows do not on remarriage ipso facto lose their 

right of guardianship of their children, 8 but, if neither the widow 
nor any other person has been expressly constituted by the will 
or testamentary disposition of the husband the guardian of his 
children, the father, or paternal grandfather, or the mother or 
paternal grandmother, or any male relative, of the husband 
can apply to the highest Court having original jurisdiction in 
civil cases in the place where the husband was domiciled at 

1 Besant v. Narayaniah (1914), 41 * Muchoo v. Arzoon Sahoo (1866), 
I. A. 314 ; 38 Mad. 807 ; 18 C. W. N. 5 W. B. C. B. 235, above, note 3 
1089 ; 16 Bom. L. B. 625. Kanahi Ram v. Biddya Ram (1878) 

2 Venlcamma v. Sawtramma (1888), 1 All. 549 ; Kaulesra v. Jorai Ka* 
12 Mad. 67 ; In the matter of Saithri saundhan (1905), 28 All 233. 
(1891), 16 Bom. 307. Fnggoo Daye v. Eanak Daye 

3 Act XXL of 1850 ; Muchoo v. (1865), 4 W. B. M. A. 3. 

Arzoon Sahoo (1866), 5 W. R C. B. 7 Sco ln i}ie maUer of Mtw 

235 ; Queen v. Bezonji, Perry's Ori- Chundei Surma, Ben. S. D. A. 1850 p 

cntal Cases, p. 91. It has been 471. Strange's "Hindu Law" vol 

doubted whether Act XXI of 1850 i. p. 185; Sutherland's "Syno'psis of 

affects guardianship, but the Punjab tho Law of Adoption," 2nd head 

Chief Court (In, the matter of Gul a Gang* Pershad Baku v. JMo 

Mahomed) has held that a right of (1911), 38 Gale. 862 ; 15 C. W N 579 

guardianship is a right within the Act XV. of 1856, s. 5. This Act has 

meaning of Act XXI. of 1850. See been declared to be in force through- 

JLanaM Ram v Bi&dya Ram (1878), out British India, except as regards 

1 All. 549 ; Kaulesra v. Jorai Ka- the Scheduled Districts (Act XV of 

saundan (1905), 28 All. 233 ; Stem- 1874, s. 3), and in the Santhal Per- 

*wg v. Santabai (1901), 25 Bom. 551, gunnahs (Beg. III. of 1872 s 3 as 

at p. 555 ; 3 Bom. L. R. 89 ; Putlabai amended by Beg. III. of 1886) ' As 

v. MMu (1908), 33 Bom. 107; 10 to the Scheduled Districts to which 



; o 13C !t has been applied, see General Acts 

See Strange's "Hindu Law," 1854-60, 4th ed, p. 121 ' 

' J 



vol. i. p. 100, 



CHAP, V.] REMEDIES. 217 

the time of his death for the appointment of a guardian, 1 and 
the Court may, if it should think fit, appoint such guardian 
who, when appointed, shall be entitled to have tho care and 
custody of such children during their minority in tho place of 
their mother, and in making such appointment the Court must 
be guided, as far as may be, by the laws and rules in force touch- 
ing the guardianship of children who have neither father nor 
mother. 2 

When the children have not property of their own sufficient 
for their support and proper education whilst minors, the 
appointment can only be made with the consent of the mother, 
unless the proposed guardian gives security for the support and 
proper education of the children whilst minors. 3 

A father or other person entitled to the custody of an infant can recover Remedies, 
such custody by suit. 4 

When the child is within the limits of the ordinary original civil juris- 
diction of the High Courts of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, he can apply 
for relief under sec. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5 

Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, 6 gives tho District 
Courts power to arrest a ward and deliver him into the custody of his 
guardian, " 

Where the child is confined under such circumstances that the con- 
finement amounts to an offence, sec. 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code 7 
is applicable, and sec. 552 of the same code deals with the case of a female 
child under fourteen years of age, who has been detained for an unlawful 
purpose. 

The powers of a guardian (de facto or de jure) to alienate the property 
of his ward are the same as those of a manager of a joint family acting for 
a minor coparcener, see post, pp. 285 et seq. 

1 Act XV. of 1856, s. 3. The ap- 3 Act XV. of 1856, s. 3. 

plication may be made under that * Sharif a v. MuneJchan (1901), 

Act, or under the Guardians and 25 Bom. 574; 2 Bom. L. R. C17; 

Wards Act (VIII. of 1890). In the Balmalcuna v. Janki (1881), 3 All. 

latter case the conditions necessary 403 ; Achrathal Jeki&andas v. OJn- 

for an application under Act VIII. marital Parbhudas (1916), 40 Bom. 

of 1890 would apply. Act XV. of 600 ; 18 Bom. L. R. 582. See, how- 

1856 has in this matter no application ever, Sham Lai v. indo (1904), 26 

to women who, by the rales of their All. 594. The guardian would bring 

caste, are capable of contracting a the suit in his own name. For recent 

second valid marriage. In Kish&n, v. examples of suits of this kind, see 

Enayet Hossain, S. D. A. N.-W. P., Krishna v. Reade(l885), 9 Mad. 31; 

25th June, 1861, it was hold that a S. C. Xeade v. Krishna (1886), 9 Mad. 

woman of the Aheer caste does not 391; VenkammavJSavitramma(lSSB) 9 

by remarriage forfeit her rights to 12 Mad. 67 ; Abasi v. Dunne (1878), 

act as guardian of her son by her first 1 All. 598, 

marriage. * Act V. of 1898. 

a Act XV. of 1856, s. 3. See Khus- * Act VIII. of 1890. 

halt v. Rani, 4 All. 195. 7 Act V. of 1898. 



OHAPTBB VI. 



THE JOINT FAMILY AND ITS PROPERTY, 

pfxvhatthe AMONG Hindus a family is not ordinarily composed only of 

f&nnly con* 

sists. parents and their unmarried children, although that typo of 

family is sometimes to be found. The family would generally 
be composed of a man, his -wife, or wives, his unmarried children, 
his married sons and their wives and children, and, in cases 
where they are not maintained by their husband's family, bin 
widowed daughters. 1 

A family of this type, although in many respects complete 
in itself, may be a component part of a larger family. Thin 
larger family consists of all the descendants in tho main lino 
from a common ancestor, and their wives, sons, and unmarried 
daughters. 2 

Whether tho family be of the larger or smaller typo, tho 
members would ordinarily live together, being maintained from 
the common purse, and performing jointly tho coromouioB 
required by their religion, 

A family so living together is called by English lawyers a 
joint Hindu family, and in its ordinary condition the members of 
it are said to be joint in food, worship, and estate. 

" Tho fundamental principle of tho Hindu joint family is Iho 1 io of 
sapindaship. 3 Without that it is impossible to form a joint 'family." * 

The rights of the individual members in tho property belong- 
ing to the family vary, in accordance with tho school of law to 
which the family belongs. fi 

If tho family bo governed by tho Bengal school of law, sons 



Rights of 
members. 



1 See ante, p. 207, and goat, pp 
234,230. 

2 See Intro, to *' Study of Hindu- 
ism," by Gwru Proaad Son, p p 
87-90. **' 

3 See post, p. 379. 



* Kawndas DJmomsey v. 
(1908), 32 Bom. 479, at p. 493 ; 10 
Bom. L. E.184, K. 1C Bhattaeharya'fl 
" Law Eclating to tho Joint Hindu 
Family," pp, 38, 39, 137. 

6 See ante, p. 20. 



220 JOINT FAMILY. [CHAP. VI, 

partition, the separating or dividing members form new families, 
to which the joint family system applies, 1 

The joint family may also come to an end by the death of 
the last surviving coparcener, in which case, in default of his 
disposing of the property, his heir takes by inheritance. 

" By the nature of the case the joint family must commence, and also 
must end, when it does end, in an individual who holds the property in 
a separate condition. If this individual dies without becoming the root 
of a joint family, the Mitakshara law gives an interim enjoyment of the 
property to his female representatives, when there are any, and then 
transfers it to a collateral heir as the origin of a new jomt family." 2 

The joint family system undouhtedly owes its origin to the patriarchal 
system. As time advanced the exclusive rights of the father became modi- 
fied in favour of the sons, who asserted rights to an interest in the property, 
but continued to live together with unity of possession of the family property. 

As to the origin of the joint family system, and as to the similarities 
between it and other ancient systems of law, see Sir Henry Maine's 
" Ancient Law," pp. 123-161 ; Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th ed., chap. vii. ; 
Krishna Kamal Bhattacharya's " Law Relating to the Joint Hindu Family," 
Lectures I. and II. ; Jogendranath Bhattacharya's " Commentaries on the 
Hindu Law," 2nd ed., pp. 216-218. 

Burden of In a suit which involves a question as to whether a family 

proof as to ... ^ 

family or < was joint or separate, or whether a particular property belonged 
property bemg to ft j^j fa^ft^ or wag y^ se p ara t e acquisition of an individual 

member of the family, 3 the burden of proof would depend upon 

the allegations in the pleadings or at the hearing, and would, 

as in other cases, lie on the person who would fail if no evidence 

at all were given on either side. 4 

This burden of proof would be shifted by the following 

presumptions : 

Presumption Every Hindu family is presumed- to be joint in food, worship, 
o union. an( j estate< TJie p r0 p er ty belonging to the family is presumed 

to be joint and undivided, the burden of proving a separation 

being upon the person alleging it. 5 

As to the presumption with regard to property in the name of a copar- 
cener, see post, pp. 254. 

1 Bata Krishna Naik v. Chtntamani * Soe post, pp. 248-254 
Nmk (1885), 12 Calc. 262. * Indian Evidence Act (I. of!872) 

a Earn Narain Singh (RbjaJi) v. s. 102. See BholanatJi Mahta v 

Pertm flftiv* (1873), HB.L.B. 397; Ajoodhia Persad Sookul (1873) 12 

at p. 404 ; 20 W. R. Q B 189, at p. 192. B. L R. 336 ; 20 W. E. 0. K. 65. 



. . . 

J^J^^faP^v-Ttowathanm * Rewun Persad v. Zadha JBeeby 

oi i ^ a 5 7 ; Ja * oda oer v ' (-tfwwttwiaO (1846), 4 M. I. A. 137, 
^eoP^^^(1889),17Calc.33, at p. 168; Naragunty Lutchmeeda- 
at p. 36. See yo^, pp. 241, 242. mmaJi v. Vengama Naidoo (1861), 



CHAP. VI.] 



PRESUMPTION OF UNION. 



221 



This presumption is merely a presumption as to the continuance of a 
juridical relationship, 1 combined with a presumption as to the ordinary 
practice of Hindu families. 3 It applies as much to the case of a father 
and son, governed hy the Mitakshara law, as to the case of brothers and 
other coparceners. 3 It takes the place of evidence, and may be displaced 
by evidence of a state of things inconsistent with such presumption. 4 

It is not necessary, for the preservation of the joint nature Separation in 
of family property, that the members of the family should live food?* and 
in commensality ; they may dwell and mess apart, and yet 
remain joint in property. 6 

The presumption that the family is joint would be weakened, Separate 
if not rebutted, by evidence of separate trading funds, and ' 
property, and independent dealing with such property, 6 although 
the family may have been joint in food. 7 



dealings. 



9 ML I. A. 66, at p. 92 ; 1 W R. P. 0. 
30, at p. 32 ; Neelkisto Deb Burmono 
v. Beerchunder ThaTcoor (1869), 12 
M. I. A. 523, at p. 540 ; 3 B. L. R. 
P. C. 13, at p. 17 ; 12 W. R. P. C. 
21, at p. 23 ; Cheetha (Mussamut) v. 
Miheen Latt (Baboo) (1867), 11 
M. I. A. 369 ; Prit Koer v. Mahadeo 
Pershad Singh (1894), 21 I. A. 134, 
at p. 135 ; 22 Calc. 85, at p. 89 ; 
Bhugdbutty Misrain v. Domun Mis* 
ser (1875), 24 W. R. C. R. 365; 
Taruck Chunder Poddar v. Jodeshur 
Chunder Koondoo (1873), 11 B. L. R. 
193 ; 19 W. R. C. R. 178 ; 8Mb 
Pershad Chuclcerbutty v. Gunga 
Monee Debee (1871), 16 W. R. C. R. 
291 ; Cassumbhoy Ahmedbhoy v. 
Ahmedbhoy HuUbhoy (1887), 12 
Bom. 280, at p. 309 ; Bdash Koon- 
war (Mussamut) v. Bhawanee Buksh 
Narain (Baboo), W. R. 1864, 0. R. 
1 ; Bissumbhur Sircar v. Soorodhuny 
Dossee (1865), 3 W. R. C. R. 21; 
Treelochun Roy v. Rajkishen Roy 
(1866), 5 W. R. C. R. 214; Beer 
Narain Sircar v. Teen Cowree Nundee 
(1864), 1 W. R. 0. R 316. 

1 Of. Indian Evidence Act (I. of 
1872), *. 109, 114, illustration (d). 

2 Indian Evidence Act (I. of 1872), 
s. 114. 

3 Kallianji v. Besonji (1908), 32 
Bom. 512 ; 10 Bom. L. R. 754. 

* See Bholanath Mahta v. Ajoodhia 
Period SooJcul (1873), 12 B. L. R. 
336 ; 2a W, R. 0, R. 65, 



5 Ganesh Duit Thaloor (Chowdhry) 
v. Jewach Thakoorain (Mussummat) 
(1903), 31 I. A. 10 ; 31 Gale. 2G2 ; 
8 C. W. N. 146 ; 6 Bom. L. R. 1 ; 
Rewun Persad v. Radha Beeby (Mussu- 
mat) (1846), 4 M. I. A. 137, at p. 168 ; 
7 W. R. P. C. 35, at p. 37 ; Nursingh 
Das (Rai) v. Narain Das (#a) (1871), 3 
N. W. P. 217, at p. 235 ; Banee Mad- 
hub Mookerjee v. BhuggobvMy Churn 
Banerjee (1867), 8 W. R. C. R. 270 ; 
Hurish Chunder Mookerjee v. MoJchoda 
Debia (1872), 17 W. R. C. R. 564 ; 
Sherajooddeen Ahmed (Shaikh) v. 
Horel Singh (1876), 25 W. R. C. R. 
116; Parbutty Coomar v. Sudabut 
Pcrsad (1865), 2 Hay, 315 ; Gour Lall 
Singh v Mohesh Narain Ohose (1870), 
14 W. R. C. R. 484 ; Pearee Monee 
Bibee v. Madhub Singh (1871), 15 
W. R. C. R. 93 ; Belas Koer (Mus- 
samut) v. Bhowanee Buksh (Baboo) 
(1863), Marsh, 641 ; S. C. on review, 
W. R. 1864, 0. R. 1; Vurdyengar 
v. Alagasingyengar (1807), Strange's 
" Hindu Law," vol. ii. p. 371. 

6 Bodh Sing Doodhooria v. Gunesh 
Chunder Sen (1873), 12 B. L. R. 317 ; 
19 W. R. C. R. 356. See Muraii 
Vtthoji v. Mukund Sh^vaj^ Naik 
Golaticar (1890), 15 Bom. 201 ; MaJc- 
hun Lall Dutt v. Ram Loll Shaw 
(1898), 3 C. W. MT. 134 ; Peary Lall v. 
Bhawoot Koer (1862), W. R. Sp. No. 
18 ; Udoy Chand Biswas v. Panchoo 
Ram Biswas (1882), 11 0. L. R. 514. 

7 See Bodh Sing Doodhooria y. 



22-2 



PRSBTTMOTIOK OF UNION. 



[CHAP. vi. 



B0m holdings 



imity ' 



No pr?3ump- 
tion us to tune 
ol separation. 



The oircuuwtancc that certain Creels are hold in severally does not 
the presumption as regards the reat of the joint estate, 1 

Whero it is admitted or proved that a disruption of the 
unity of thp joint family has taken place, this presumption has 
no application, 2 

When one coparcener sqtarates from the others there is no presumption 
that the remaining members continue united. In that case an agree- 
ment to remain united or to reunite must be proved like any other fact : 3 
Lnt where a share is allotted to more than one person the presumption 
\ull lie that nich persons remain joint. 4 

M'ht'ii it is admitted or proved that tiie members of the family were 
n ^ j n a complete fc-tate of union nt the time of the institution of the suit, 
t ^^ ^ ^ presumption as to the family being joint at a particular time, 5 
or as to when the separation took place, bufc it lies upon the plaintiff to 
prove such a case as would entitle him to the relief which he seeks. 6 

When partial partition is admitted or proved the presumption is that 
there has been an entire partition both with reference to interest and 
properties. 7 

There is authority under the Bengal school of law that when one 
coparcener separates from the others who remain joint, such others are 
to he treated a^ reunited, 8 but it is submitted that such separation in 
y atFocts the tf.it us infer <s l c of the coparceners who remain joint. 9 



fiiumh CKutiiif Stn (1878), 12 
P.. L R. 317, at p. 320 ; 1 W. R. C. R. 
ttJJtf, at p. 357 ; (iitjindar Xamin (Hal} 
v. Harihar Sarttin (Rat) (1908), 12 
C. W. N. 087. 

1 Sreernm OJ^at v. Smnuth Butt 
Chowdkry (1807), 7 W. R, C. R. 451. 

* Rad&& Churn Dam v. Kripa 8in- 
dhu Ikw (1870), 5 Calc. 474; 4 
C, L R. 428 ; Bannoo v. Kashee Ram 
(1877), 3 Calc. 315; VMyanatha 
Aiyfir v. Aiytvmmy Aiyar (1908), 32 
Had. 11 ; Bndul Singh v. Chutkr- 
dharef ftiagk (ISttS), W. R. C. R. 
#58; NoMunt/tnrdti \\ JBhtirmunyotcda 
(1SH3), 1 Bom H. C. 43. 

3 UtiJffhnr Ladhurtim v. flulkmnbai 
(l(H;i), 3U L A. 130; 30 Cale. 725; 
7 C W. N. G42 ; 5 Bom. L, R. 469 ; 
Chum Daw v. Kripa Sindhu 
(1870), 5 Calc. 474; 4 C. L. R. 
428 ; Ktilada Protfmd Panday v. Han- 
podfi Chattcrjie (1912), 40 Calc. 407; 
17 C. W. N. 102 (a case where one of 
th*> family had become a Christian) ; 
jto&yi Aktiba v. JDttitti Laxman (1912), 
37Bo.64; 14 Bom. L. R. 023. Ste, 
Upendranarain Myti v. 
Bern (1883), 9 Calc. 817; 
12 0. L. B. 3S^. It was held in 



Rangunntha Rao v. 
Stacker (1900), 31 Mad. 482, that 
there is no presumption of a general 
division among all the members of a 
coparcenary from the fact that ono 
of its members has separated. 

* See Durga Dti v. BalmaJcund, 
(1906), 20 All. 93. 

8 Obhoy Churn Ghoae v. Oobind 
Chunder Dfy (1882), 9 Calc, 237, at 
p. 243. 

6 Mam Ghulani Singh v. Mam 
Bebari Singh (1805), 18 All. 90. 

7 Vaidyanathn Aiyar v. Atyasami 
Aiyar (1908), 32 Mad. 101, at p. 195 ; 
Anandibai v. Harisuba Pai (1911), 
35 Bom. 293; 13 Bom. L. R. 287, 
see port, pp. 340, 343, 344. 

8 Jaudub Chunder Ghose v. Benod- 
leharry Ghoae (1862), 1 Hyde, 214; 
Petambur Dutt v. Hurish Chunder 
&utt (1871), 15 W. R. C. R. 200. See 

Mahapatfar v. Nandkishor 
B. L. R. A.C.7. 
As to reunion, see po$t 9 pp. 359, 300.^ 

9 Sec Upendmnamin Myti v. 
Qopfntaih Bera (1883), 9 Calc. 817; 
12 C, L. R. 356 ; Sudarsanam Maistri 
v. Xamsimhulu Maistri (1901), 25 
Mad. 149, at.pp. 156, 157. Pott, p. 344, 



CHAP. VI.] COPARCENARY PROPERTY. 223 

u The strength of the presumption necessarily varies in strength of 
every case. The presumption of union is stronger in the case presum P tion - 
of brothers than in the case of cousins, and the farther you go 
from the founder of the family, the presumption becomes 
weaker and weaker." * 

In practice a family does not continue joint for many generations. 
It has been said 2 that " in no case , . . will it be found that the diluted 
degree of blood relationship amongst the members of the complex family 
group extends beyond the fourth degree." Another writer says, "I 
doubt whether at this day there is a single iindivided Hindu family through- 
out India, in which persons related to one another by a common ancestor 
beyond the seventh degree are to be found living together, or holding 
property in common." 3 The seventh degree, which is the limit of sapin - 
daship, 4 seems always to have been the limit, 5 

The presumption as to union applies to new families formed New famihes. 
from the separation of members of an old family. 6 

The property belonging to a joint family is hereinafter Coparcenary 
called the coparcenary property. proper y. 

The expression used in the Mitakshara is translated as "ancestral 
property," 7 i.e. property transmitted in the direct male line from a common 
ancestor ; but having regard to the fact that under the decisions 8 all 
property held by the members of a Mitakshara family, as such, is ordinarily 
coparcenary property, and that in every case it cannot properly be des-* 
cribed as "ancestral," it is, I think, more convenient to use the term 
" coparcenary." 

WHO ARE COPARCENERS. 

The members of the family who are entitled to an coparceners. 
interest in the property of the family are hereinafter called 
coparceners. 

Under the Bengal school the coparcener^ consist of the Coparceners 
persons, whether male or female, entitled to shares in 



coparcenary property by inheritance, transfer, or a will, or by sc * 

1 Moro Vtehvanath v* OaneaJt Vittwl Relating to the Joint Hindu family," 
(1873), 10 Bom. H. 0. 444, at p. pp, 136-138, 

468. Mr. Ellis' remarks, Strange's 6 Bata Krishna Nailc v. Chintamani 

" Hindu Law," ii. 347. Naik (1885), 12 Calc. 262. 

2 Introduction to " Study of 7 PUrarjit, as distinguished from 
Hinduism," by G. P. Sen, p. 89. Swarfa* self -acquired. 

3 K. K. Bhattaeharya's " Law 8 Post, pp. 238, 239. See Rarsondas 
Belating to the Joint Hindu Family," Dharamsey v. Gangabai (1908), 32 
p. 137. Bom. 479; 10 Bonu L. R. 184; 

4 See ytost 9 p. 379. Haridas IJalji v. Narotam Itaghavji 
6 K. K. Bh&ttacharya's " Law (1912), 14 Bom. L. R. 237. 



224 



COPARCEKEKS* 



[CHAP, vi, 



Power <*t 
dispositu n. 



virtue of some other mode of acquisition. 1 These shares are 
defined. 2 

There is under that school no right of survivorship. On 
the death of a coparcener his share passes by inheritance or by 
will. A son, therefore, cannot, as such, 3 as under the Mitakshara 
law, be a coparcener with his father. 4 

Under the Bengal school of law a Hindu may, without any 
restriction, dispose of his property 6 (although it may be an 
undivided share), 6 whether ancestral or self-acquired, by sale, 
mortgage, gift, or will, whether in favour of strangers or in favour 
of some of his own issue or relations, to the exclusion of others. 7 

This applies also to property, 8 the succession to which is governed by 
1he law of primogeniture. 9 

The sons do not acquire any right in their father's property 
except under his will or as his heirs. 10 

In Soorjctmoney Dossce (Sreemutty) v. DenobwidTioo Mulllck (1857), 11 
the Supreme Court of Bengal laid down the following propositions with 
regard to joint property governed by the Bengal school of law : 

1. ** Etich of the co-sharers has a right to call for a partition, 12 but until 



1 A&, for in&tanec, when the pro- 
jicrty has been acquired by the joint 
exertions of the members of the 
family, or where persons who are not 
coparceners have been treated as such 
by the real coparceners; el Glrhi 
Rani Misrani v. Chandra Lai Kanth 
(1912), 17 C. W. N. 62. 

a Soorjetmoney Dostec (SrcemuUy) 
v. Dent&undoQ Muttick (1857), tf 
M. I. A. 52G, at p 533 ; 4 W. R. 
P. 0. 114, at p. 115; Rajkishore 
Luhooyy v. (rtibitid Chunder LaJioary 
(1875), 1 Cdlc. 27; 24 \V. R. 0. R. 
234 ; 4 I A 153 ; see Shro Soondary 
v. Pirtfae tiinffh (1877), 4 I. A. 147. 

3 There might be a case of a son 
taking by a transfer or a will a share 
in property in wliich his father is also 
a sharer. 

4 JSee Bfjoy KntJuiti Ghosh v. 
Askutosh Ghosh (1908), 13 0. W. N. 
396. 

6 The property is not coparcenary 
piroperty, but is on the same footing 
as self-acquired property. 

Post, pw 290. 

7 RwnMtfare Acharj Chowdree 
v. J2fc00&mwoyee J>ebea Chowdrain, 



Ben. S. B. A. 1859, p. 229, at pp. 250, 
251 ; Bhodbunmoyee Debea CJiow 
dhraift v. RainJcisihorc, Acharj Chowdree 
Ben. S. B. A. 1860, p. 485, at p. 489 ; 
Kumta Kauri Ghukerbidty v. Gooroo 
Oovind Choiedree (1829), 4 Ben. Sel. 

B. 322 (2nd ed, 410) ; Certificate of 
judges of Bengal Sudder Dewanny 
Adawhit, set out in 6 Ben. Sel. R. 
at p. 73 (2nd ed., p 85); Tarnee 
Churn v. Dasee Daseea (Mnssiimvnaut) 
(1824), 3 Ben. Sel. K. 397 (2nd ed., 
p. 530) ; Delendra Coomar Itoy 
Cfiowdhry v. Brojendm Coomar Roy 
Choudhry (1890), 17 Cale. 88G ; 
Shainachurn Sircar's " Vyavastha 
Darpana," 2nd ed., 552 it seq. 

8 Cddoy Addttya Deb v. Jadublal 
Adittya Dab (1879), 5 Calc. 113 ; 4 

C. L. K. 181; S. C. on appeal 
(1881), 8 I. A. 248; 8 Calc. 190. 
Narain Khootia, v. IJokenath Khootia 
(1881), 7 Calo. 461 ; 9 C. L. R. 243. 

Pout, pp. 264, 265, 

10 See Dharmadas Kundu v. Amulya 
Dhan Kundu (190(5), 10 C. W. N. 765. 

11 6 M. I. A. 52C, at p. 539. 

12 "Dayabhaga," chap. iii. s, 1, 
para. 10. 



CUAP. VI.] 



225 



such partition takes place . . . the whole remains common, slock; the 
co-sharers being equally interested in every part of it. 

2. " On the death of an original co-sharer his heirs stand in his place 
and succeed to his rights as they stood at his death ; his rights may also, 
in his lifetime, pass to strangers, either by alienation, or, as is the case of 
creditors, by operation of law ; * . . . but in all cases those who come 
in, m the place of the original co-sharer, by inheritance, assignment, or 
operation of law, can take only his rights as they stand, including, of course, 
the right to call for a partition. 

3. " Whatever increment is made to the common stock, whilst the 
estate continues joint, falls mto and becomes part of that stock." 

Under the Mitaksliara law a male Hindu acquires by birth or Coparceners 
adoption a vested interest in all coparcenary property 2 (whether the Mitak- 
ancestral or not, 3 and whether acquired before or after his s ara " 
birth 4 or adoption, 5 as the case may be), held by his father, or 
father's father, or father's father's father, at the time of his 
birth 6 or adoption, as the case may bo, as members of a joint 
family oven during their lifetime. 7 

Those persons who by birth or adoption so acquire an interest 
in tho coparcenary property are coparceners. 8 A person can 



1 Post, pp. 299-301. 

2 He does not by birth acquire an 
interest in a mere right of suit, or 
itt an equitable right to procure an 
alteration in a grant : Ujagur Singh 
(Chaudhri) v. Pitam Singh (Chaudhri) 
(1881), 8 I. A. 190 ; 4 All. 120. 
Ho acquires an interest in debutter 
property ; Ram Chandra Panda v. 
Ram Krishna Mahapatra (1900), 33 
Calc 507. 

8 Karsondas Dharamsey v. Gangabai 
(1908), 32 Bom. 479 ; 10 Bom. L. B. 
184; see, however, Jamna Prasad v. 
Ram Partap (1907), 29 All. 667. 

4 Ramanna v. VenJcata (1888), 11 
Mad. 246 ; Jugmohandas Mangaldas 
v. Sir Mangaldas Nathubhoy (1886), 
10 Bom. 528, at p. 581 ; Isree Per- 
shad Singh v. Nasib Kooer (1884), 10 
Calc. 1017, at p. 1021 ; contrd per 
Mitter, J., Qunga Prosad v. Ajudhia 
Pershad (1881), 8 Calc. 131, at p. 
134 ; S. C. Gkmga Pershad v. Sheodyal 
Singh, 9 C. L. B. 417, at p. 420. 

5 Sudanund MoJiapattur v. Soorjo 
Monee Dayee (1869), 11 W. B. C. B. 
436. 

He acquires no interest in property 
which had ceased to belong to the 
family at the time of his birth ; Lachmi 

H.L, 



Narain Prasad v. Kishan Ktshore 
Chand (1915), 38 All. 126. 

7 Suraj Bunsi JKoer v. Sheo Pro- 
shad Singh (1879), 6 I A. 88, at pp.-' 
99, 100 ; 5 Gale. 148, at p. 164 ; 4 
C. L. B. 22G, at p. 232 ; Raja Ram 
Tewary v. Luchmun Persad (1867), 
B. L. B Sup. Vol. 731 j 8 W. B. C. 
B 15 ; 2 Ind. Jur. N. S. 216 ; Sudar- 
sanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu, Maiatri 
(1901), 25 Mad. 149, at p. 155; AV 
typpai Nachiar v, SanJcaranaryana 
CUtty (1903), 27 Mad. 300, at p. 
313 ; Bullayya v. Surayya (1887), 10 
Mad. 251, at p. 254 ; Sartaj Kuari 
(Rani) v. Deoraj Kuari (Ram) (1888), 
15 L A. 51, at p. 61 ; 10 All. 272, at 
pp. 284, 285 ; Ram Narain Singh 
(Rajah) v. P&rtum Singh (1873), 11 
B, L. B. 397, at pp. 401, 402 ; 20 W. 
B. C. B. 189, at p. 190 ; Qoor Surun Doss 
v. Ram Surun Bhukut (1866), 5 W. 
B. C. B. 54 ; Sudanund Mohapattur 
v. Soorjo Monee Dayee (1869), 11 W. 
B. C. B. 430. 

8 They have, individually, no pro- 
prietary right until partition, which 
is treated by the Mitakshara as one 
of the sources of such right. See 
Ohuchtn Lall SingJi v. Poran Chunder 
Singh (1868), 9 W. B. C. B. 483. 

Q 



226 COPARCENERS. [CHAP. VI- 

also become a coparcener by the death of an ancestor whose 
existence excludes him from the eoparcenership. 1 

All the coparceners are male descendants in the male line 
of the acquirer of the property. 2 

It is also said to be possible that a person can become a coparcener by 
treatment as such by the coparceners. 3 

Where property is acquired jointly by members of a family they are 
all coparceners therein. 4 

The interest that a son acquires is equal to that of his father. 
He does not acquire his title through his father, but separately 
and independently of his father. 5 He has no independent 
dominion over the property. 6 

The distance in degree from the founder of the family does 
not affect the right of copareenership, 7 but the coparceners are 
limited to the head of each stock, and his sons, son's sons, and 
son's son's sons. 8 

Thus the body of coparceners cannot include any individual together 
with a male descendant of his other than his son, grandson, or great- 
grandson, or, in other words, no man can be a coparcener if his great- 
great-grandfather is also a coparcener. 

If either his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather survive his 
great-great-grandfather, then he steps into the coparcenary on the death 
of the great-great-grandfather. If they all predecease his great-great- 
grandfather, he does not take, but the interest survives to the collaterals, 
if any. If there is no coparcener, then the heir of the great-great-grand- 
father takes by inheritance. 

In Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesk Vithal 9 (1873), Nanabhai Haridas, J., 
said, " The rule which I deduce from the authority on the subject is not 
that a partition cannot be demanded by one more than four degrees re- 
moved from the acquirer or original owner of the property, sought to be 
divided, but that it cannot be demanded by one more than four degrees 

1 Below. Rajah) v. Jenumakt Eamandom Garu 

2 Bhattacharya's " Hindu Law," (Sri Rajah) (1870), 6 Mad. H. 0. 93 ; 
2nd ed., p. 323. Girwurdharee Sing (Baboo) v. Kulaliul 

3 Oirhi Hani Miamni v. Chandra Sing (1825), 4 Ben. Sel. R. 9 (new 
Lai Earth (1912), 17 C. W. BT 62. edition, 12). 

4 Po* t p. 239. s See Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesh 
8 SwidarLalv. Chhitar Mai (190G), Vithal (1873), 10 Bom. H. C. 444, at 

29 All. 1. p. 449 . Bhattacharya's " Hindu 

* BMeo Das v. Sham Lai (1875), Law," 2nd ed., p. 323. 

I All. 77 ; Beer Kishore Suhye Singh 9 10 Bom. H. 0. Hep. 444, at p. 

(Baboo) v. Hur Bullub Narain Singh 465. As to the application of this 

(BoboQ) (1867), 7 W. E. C. R, 602. principle to an impartible estate, see 

7 Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesh Yenumala Gavundewmma Garu (Sri 

Vithal (1878X 10 Bom. H. 0. 444 ; Rajah) v. Yenumala Kamandora Garu 

Jenumla Gwrnridewmtoa Garu (Sn (Sri Majah) (1870), 6 Mad. H. 0. 93. 



CHAP, VI.] 



ILLEGITIMATE SON. 



427 



removed from the last owner, however remote he may be from the original 
owner thereof." 

This is the only case in which a male member of a Mitakshara family 
who is free from defects which operate as grounds for exclusion from parti- 
tion, 1 is not a coparcener. As he is not a sapinda of his great-great-grand- 
father, he does not on his death, in that case, become a coparcener. 

An illegitimate son of a member of one of the three regenerate illegitimate 
classes acquires no rights as coparcener in coparcenary property. 2 s n 

According to the Mitakshara school, an illegitimate son of 
a Budra can inherit 3 and be a coparcener, if he be not the result 
of adulterous 4 or incestuous intercourse, 6 

An illegitimate son of a Sudra does not acquire an interest 
by birth, and therefore cannot claim partition against his father, 
or against his father's coparceners, 6 other than the sons of his 
father, or dispute his father's dealings with the coparcenary 
property,? but his father can permit him to have a share of the 
coparcenary property, 8 equal to that of a legitimate son. 9 

On the death of his father he becomes a coparcener with 
the legitimate sons, and on their deaths takes by survivorship. 10 



1 Post, pp, 228, 229. 

2 Roshan Singh v. Balwant Singh 
(1899), 27 I. A. 51, at p. 56 ; 22 All. 
391, at p. 197; 2 Bom. L. R. 529; 
Run Murdun 8yn (Ohuoturya) v. 
Sahub Purhulad Syn (1857), 7 M. I. A. 
18 ; 4 W. R. P. C. 132. As to his right 
of maintenance, see ante, pp. 207, 208. 

8 Rahi v. Qovinda Valad Teja 
(1875), 1 Bom. 97; Sadu v. Baiza 
(1878), 4 Bom. 37; Sarasuti v. 
Mannu (1879), 2 All. 134 ; Hargobind 
Kuan v. Dharam Singh (1884), 6 All. 
329; Krishnayyan v. Muttusami 
(1883), 7 Mad. 407 ; N. Krishwmma 
v. N. Papa (1869), 4 Mad. H. 0. 234 ; 
Brindavana v. Radhamani (1888), 12 
Mad. 72, at p. 86. Sec Jfnderun 
Valungypooty Taver v. Ramasaumy 
Pand^a Talavcr (1869), 13 M. I. A. 
141, at p. 159 ; 3 B. L. R. P. C, 1, 
at p. 4; 12 W. R. P. C. 41, at 
p. 43; "Mann," chap. ix. para. 179 ; 
" Yajnavalkya," chap. ii. para. 135 ; 
" Mitakshara," chap. i. s xii. 

* MaU v. Govinda Valad Teja 
(1875), 1 Bom. 97; Vencatachetta 
Chetty v. Parvatham (1875), 8 Mad. 
H, 0. 134; DaU$ Y, Qawpti (1886), 



8 All. 387. 

6 Datti Parisi Nayudu v. Datti 
Sangaru Nayudu (1869), 4 Mad. H. 
C. 204. The right is not subject to 
a further condition that a marriage 
could have taken place between the 
father and the mother according to 
the custom of the caste to which the 
mother belonged: Soundararajan v. 
Arunachatom Ghetty (1915), 39 Mad. 
136. 

6 Krishnayyawr. Muttusami (1883), 
7 Mad. 407. 

7 Ram Saran Oaram v. TekchanA 
Garain (1900), 28 Gale. 194. 

8 Ram Saran Oarain v. TekchanA 
#aratw(1900),28 Calc. 194, at p. 203; 
"Mitakshara," chap. L s, 12; " Vya- 
vahara Mayukha," chap, iv. s. 4 f 
para. 32; Colebrooke's "Digest," 
vol. iii. p. 143. 

9 Karuppannan Chetti v. Bulokam 
(7Aei(1899),23Mad. 16. 

10 Jogendra Bhupati Hurri Chundun 
Mahapatra (Raja) v. Nityanund Han* 
singh (1890), 17 L A. 128; 18 Calc. 
151. S. C. in Court below (1885), 
11 Calc. 702 ; Sadu v. Bairn (1878), 
4 Bom. 37 S at pp. 44, 45. 



'2-28 BXGLUHtotf. [CHAP. vi. 

He can bring & suit against them for partition, 1 and hi sons are entitled 
to share with the sons of legitimate sons. 2 

In case of a partition between the illegitimate sons and legitimate sons, 
the former are each entitled only to half a share of one of the latter. 3 

As he does not represent his father he has no right as against the un- 
divided brothers of his father or against the sons of such brothers, 4 

He is thus only by right a coparcener when there are legitimate sons, 
and the father has died separated from his brothers. 5 

An illegitimate son who cannot inherit, or be a coparcener, is entitled 
to maintenance out of the property in which his father was a coparcener. 6 
This right can be enforced against impartible property. 7 

As to his right of inheritance, sec post,, pp. 382-385, 423. 

Under the Mitakshara, law, a woman cannot become a 
coparcener 8 with male coparceners. 9 

There is nothing to prevent a female member of the family acquiring a 
right by adverse possession. 10 

Under all the schools of law, those who by Hindu law are 
incapacitated by physical infirmity from inheriting, are also 
incapacitated from taking as coparceners, or from taking a 
share on a partition, but if they would otherwise be coparceners 
they are entitled to maintenance u for themselves and for the 
persons whom they are legally or morally bound to support, 12 



1 Qkangam PiUai v. JSuppa Pillai 7 Run Murdun Syn (Cliuoturya) v. 

(1888), 12 Mad. 401. Sakub Purhulad Byn (1857), 7 M. I. 

8 Fakirappa v. Faleirappa, (1902), 4 A. 18 ; 4 W. R. P. 0. 132 ; Muttu- 

Bom. L. R. 809. sawmy Jagavera Yettappa Naicker v. 

8 Parwfki v. TMruirwM (1887), Vencataswara Yettaya (1868), 12 M. 

10 Mad. 334, at p. 344 ; CheUammal I. A. 203 ; 2 B. L. R (P. C.) 15 ; U 

v. JKanganatham Pittai (1910), 34 W. R. P. C. G, ante, p. 208. 
Mad. 277; Vencataraw, v* Vencata 8 Punna Bibee v. Badhalcwsen 

Lutchcmee Ummal (1817), 2 Str. 3ST. Das (1903), 31 Gale. 476. 
0. 127, at p. 137; " Mitakshara," 9 As to the cases where women hold 

chap. i. s. 11 ,- " Mayukha," cliap. iv. jointly, see post, pp. 327, 328. 
s. 4, para. 32; Colebrooke's "Digest," 10 Sham Koer v. Dah Koer (1902), 

vol. lii. p. 143. 29 L A. 1 32 ; 29 Calc. 6G4 ; 6 C. W. N! 

4 Krishnayyan v. Miittusami (1883), 057 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 547. 
7 Mad. 407; JRanoji v Kandoji(lS85), u Ram Sahye JBhukkitt v. Laljee 

S Mad. 557; Parvathi v. Thirumalai Sahye (Lalla) (1881), 8 Calc. 149; 9 

(1887), 10 Mad. 334, at p. 346; Gopa- C. L. R. 457; Ham Soondcr Roy v. 

fasami CJietti v. Arunachclam Chetti Ram Satye Bhugut (1882), 8 Calc 

(1903), 27 Mad. 32. 919 ; " Mitakshara," chap. ii. s. 10 ; 

* See RamaUnga Muppan v. Pam- "Vyavahara Mayukha," chap. iv. s 

dai Gaunfan (1901), 25 Mad, 519, at II ; "Dayahhaga," chap. v. ; "Daya" 

pp. 51 522. Krama-Sangraha," chap. Hi. ; post, p 

*Bayblwga, w chap. ix. para. 271. 
28; "Mitafesfea^" chap. i. s. 12, *! Ante, pp. 206-212. 
para. 3, 



CHAP. VI.] EXCLUSION. 229 

and on a partition of the coparcenary property provision should 
be made for such maintenance. 

As to the grounds of exclusion from inheritance, see post, pp. 368-374:. 

A physical defect, which although not congenital excludes 
from inheritance, will, if it develops before separation or parti- 
tion, exclude from the coparcenary. 

This is the view taken by the Bengal High Court, 1 and is based upon 
the Mitakshara. 2 The Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view, 3 
on the ground that the right vests on birth. It bases its decision upon a 
case of inheritance, 4 which stands upon a different footing. It is, it is 
submitted, clear that the view of the former Court is correct. 

An excluded person who is cured of his malady after partition 
is apparently entitled to a share. 3 

This is an exception to the ordinary rule of Hindu law that an estate 
once vested cannot be devested. 

A disqualification arising subsequent to separation does not exclude. 6 

It is apparently competent to the other coparceners to waive the 
objection of disqualification. 7 

There is nothing to prevent a disqualified person from acquiring 
property by gift, 8 or otherwise than by inheritance or partition. 9 

Would a coparcener who had murdered his coparcener be entitled on 
partition to anything more than the share to which he was entitled before 
such murder ? It is submitted that he would not. Cf . yo&t, p. 373. 

The burden of proof is upon the person seeking to prove the 
disability. 10 



Safaye. BhuJckut v. Laljee v KhiJchinda Koer (Mussumat) (1890), 

ye (1881), 8 Calo. 149 ; 9 C. L. B. 18 I. A. 9 ; 18 Calc. 341. 
457; Ram JSoonder Roy v. Ram 8 See Ganga Sahai v. Hira Singh 

Sahye, Bhugut (1882), 8 Calc. 919. v!880), 2 All. 809. 

2 Chap. ii. s. 10, paras. 6, 9. Court of Wards v. Kupulmun 

3 Tirbeni Sahai v. Muhammad Sing (1873), 10 B. L. B. 364; 19 W. 
Umar (1905), 28 All. 247. B. C. B. 164. 

* Deo Kishen v, Budh Prakash 10 Hdan Dasi v. Dwrga Das, 1 C. 

(1883), 5 All. 509. L. J. 323 ; Futtick Chunder Chatterjec 

6 "Mitakshara," chap. ii. s. 10, v. Juggut Mohinee Dabee (1874), 22 

para. 7; " Mayukha," chap. iv. s. 11, W B. C. B 348; Chunder Monee 

para. 2 ; " Viramitrodaya," chap. Debia v. Kristo Chunder Mojoomdar 

via, ver. 4 ; Bhattacharya's " Law (1872), 18 W. B. C. B. 375 j Issur 

o! tho Joint Family," pp. 396, 397, Chunder Sein v. Ranee Dostee (1865), 

411-414. See, however, Mayno's 2 W. B. C. B. 125 ; Nullit Chunder 

** Hindu Law," 8th cd , p. 675. Qooho v. Bugola Soonduree Dossee 

6 "Mitakshara," chap. ii. s. 10, (1874), 21 W. B. C. B. 249. Cf. 
para. 6. See Shamachurn Audlnccaree Bhagaban Ramanuj Das (Mohunt) v. 
Byrage<& v. Roop Doss Byragee (1866), Roghunundun Ramanuj Das (Mohunt) 
6 W. B. C f K 68. (1895), 1>2 L A. 94 ; 22 Calc, 843. 

7 8co Muddun Gopal TM (Lak) 



280 



RIGHTS OF COPAHCJENEES, 



[OHAi>. VI. 



of mterwt, 



The effect of exclusion from participation in tho rights of 
the other members of the family in tho same as if the person 
excluded wore dead. 1 

80 whore the property of the coparcenary becomes vested in. a single 
member, it is not devested by the birth of a son to the person who is 
disqualified, 3 but where it ha not so vested the son by birth becomes a 
coparcener. 5 

In Madras and Bombay a coparcener, governed by tho 
JlftakAara law, may renounce life interest in the coparcenary 
property cither in favour of the body of coparceners, or in 
favour of one or more individual coparceners, 4 but in Bengal 
and tho United Provinces he cannot renounce such interest 
without the consent of the whole body of coparceners. 5 He 
can only renounce such interest with the acquiescence of tho 
other members on his being given some trifle out of tho family 
property. 

By renouncing his interest, he does not affect the rights of his sons. 7 



Bights of 



EIGHTS OF COPARCENERS. 

I, Subject to any power the manager may have to make 
amm g emm ^ f or jj^ enjoyment of tho property, 8 each 
coparcener is entitled to joint possession of the coparcenary 
property with the other coparceners, and to the full enjoyment 
thereof. 



1 Sec Bliattacharya'a u Law of the 
Joint Family,*' pp. 420-423 ; Snpuji 
Lafafanan v. Pandurany (1882), 
Bom. 610; " Mitafcshara," chap ii. 
a. 10, para. ; b< Viramitrodaya," 
chap. viii. s. ; " Vivada Chinta- 
man! " (Tagorc's translation), p. 244 ; 
" Dayabhaga,*' chap v. para. 19; 
"Smriti Chandrika," chap. v. para. 
32 ; " Vyavahara Mayukha/' chap. 
iv, B. 11, para. 11. 

* Bapuji Lafahman v. Pandurang 
(1882), 6 Bom. 616. 

Krishna v. Scant (1885), Mad. 
64. 49 to tho conflict between this 
caso a*>4 JBfli^ji* Lafahman v, Dandu- 
rang (1882)* $ Bom. 610, see Mayne's 
"Hiiicta Latr," m *&.> pp. 842-844. 



* Pcddaya v. Hamalingam (1888), 
11 Mad. 406. 

5 Sec Ckandar Kishore v. Dampat 
Kisltore (1894), 16 All. 369. Soo 
post, p. 302. An arrangement by 
which the widow of a coparcener was 
allowed to retain his share was upheld 
in Dal CJiund v. Soonder (Mussumat} 
(1867), 2 Agra, 173. 

6 Sudarsanam Matstri v. Narasim- 
J m lu Maistn (1901), 25 Mad 149, at 
p. 156 ; " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 2, 
paras. 11, 12 ; " Manu," chap. ix. 
para. 207. 

7 Shivajirao Madhavrao v. Vasan- 
two Madhavrao (1908), 33 Bom. 207; 
10 Bom. L. R. 778. 

Port, p, 278. 



CHAP. VI.] EIGHTS OF COPARCENERS, 231 

Although ho cannot sue for a share, he is entitled l to enforce 
his right to joint possession by a suit, 2 and is not necessarily 
forced to sue for partition. 3 

In a case governed by the Bengal school of law, the Judicial Committee 
said, 4 " If there be two or more tenants in common, and one (A) be in 
actual occupation of part of the estate, and is engaged in cultivating that 
part in a proper course of cultivation, as if it were his separate property, 
and another tenant in common (B) attempts to come upon the said part 
for the purpose of carrying on operations there inconsistent with the course 
of cultivation in which A is engaged, and the profitable use by him of the 
said part, and A resists and prevents such entry, not in denial of B's title, 
but simply with the object of protecting himself in the profitable enjoyment 
of the land, such conduct on the part of A would not entitle JB to a decree 
for joint possession. ... In India, a large proportion of the land, including 
many very large estates, is held in undivided shares, and if one shareholder 
can restrain another from cultivating a portion of the estate in a proper 
and husbandlike manner, the whole estate may, by means of cross in- 
junctions, have to remain altogether without cultivation until all the share- 
holders can agree upon a mode of cultivation to be adopted, or until a 
partition by metes and bounds can be effected a work which in ordinary 
course, in large estates, would probably occupy a period including many 
seasons. In such a case, in a climate like that of India, land which has 
been brought into cultivation would probably become waste or jungle, 
and greatly deteriorated in value. In Bengal the courts of justice, in cases 
where no specific rule exists, 5 are to act according to justice, equity, and 
good conscience, and if in a case of shareholders holding lands in common, 
it should be found that one shareholder is in the act of cultivating a portion 
of the lands which is not being actually used by another, it would scarcely 
be consistent with the rule above indicated to restrain him from proceed- 
ing with his work, or to allow any other shareholder to appropriate to 
himself the fruits of the other's labour or capital." 

The mere fact of sole occupation by one coparcener does 
not necessarily constitute an ouster of other coparceners, nor 
does it entitle the latter to a decree for joint possession. 
Ouster means " dispossession " of one co-sharer by another 
where a hostile title is set up by the latter and when the 
occupation of the latter is not consistent with joint ownership. 6 

i See Hulodhur Sein v. Oooroodoss Mohon Ray (1914), 18 0. W. N. 609. 

Roy (1873), 20 W. E. C. R, 126, and 4 Watson and Company v. Ram 

cases, post, p. 267, note 5; Surendra Chand DuU (1890), 17 I. A. 110, at 

Narain Sinha v. Hari Mohan Misser pp. 120, 121 ; 18 Calc. 10, at pp. 21, 

(1906), 33 Calc, 1201; Stalkartt v. 22. 

Gopal Panday (1873), 12 B. L. R. * See ante, p. 4. 

197 20 W. R. C. R. 58 ; Nundun 6 Basanta Kumari Dassya (Sree- 

aMv,Zo^(1874),22W.R. C.R.74. mutty) v. Mohesh, Cfandra Shaha 

a Laluchand v. Girjappa (1895), (1913), 18 C. W. N. 328 ; Israil v. 

20 Bom, 469. Shamser Rahman (1913), 41 Calc. 

8 See Kumud Lai Ray v. Jogendw 436. 



232 



BIGHTS OF COPARCENERS. 



[CHAP. VI. 



Building, etc. 

without 

consent. 



The Court can prevent a coparcener altering the nature 
of tlie property without the consent of the other coparceners, 
as by building on it, or otherwise interfering with the joint 
enjoyment. 1 Whether it will do so depends upon the nature 
of the case. It will not do so in the absence of a substantial 
injury, 2 and perhaps also in case he took no reasonable steps 
in time to prevent the erection. 3 

By arrangement between the parties, or at the discretion of the 
manager, 4 portions may be occupied as a matter of convenience by 
individual coparceners. Where the coparceners permit one of their 
number to occupy a particular portion of the property and to improve 
it, they cannot oust him, 5 but property does not cease to be joint merely 
because it is used so as to produce more to one of the owners who has 
incurred expenditure or risk for that purpose. 

Mr. R. C. Mitra, in his " Law of Joint Property and Partition in British 
India " (2nd ed.)> pp. 231, 232, well says, " The Eeports teem with cases of 
individual co-sharers erecting for their exchisive use pucca houses on portions 
of joint land, and the question oftentimes raised is whether such buildings 
ought not to be demolished. Now, if one of a number of co-sharers intend- 
ing to appropriate to his own use his share of the joint land should, without 
partition, take up a portion of such land and build a pticca house for his 



1 JSosJn Bhusan Ghose v. Conesh 
Chunder Ghose (1902), 29 Calc. 500 ; 
Jankce Singh v. Bukhooiee Singh, 
Ben. S. D. A. 1856, p. 761 ; Indur- 
deowrain Singh (Baboo) v. Toolsee- 
narain Singh, Ben. S. B. A. 1857, p. 
765 ; Guru Das Dhar v. Bijaya Qo- 
binda Baral (1868), 1 B. L. R. A. 0. 
108 ; 10 W. R. C. R. 171 ; Sheopersad 
Singh v. Leela Singh (1873), 12 B. 
L. R. 188; 20 W. R, C. R. 360; 
Najju Khan v. Imtiaz-ud-din (1895), 
18 All. 115; Rajendro Lall Gossami 
v. Shama Chum LaJiori (1879), 5 
Calc 188 ; 4 C. L. R. 417 ; Shadi v. 
Anup Swffh (1889), 12 All. 430. 
Contra Dwarkanath Bhooyea v. Goo- 
yeenath Btooyea, (1871), 12 B. L. R. 
189, note ; 16 W. R. C. R. 10 ; Crow- 
dee v. Bhekdhari Sing (1871), 8 B. L. 
R. App. 45 ; 16 W. R. C. R 41 ; 
Chunder Kant Chowdhry v. Nund Lall 
Chowdhry (1871), 16 W. R. C. R. 
277. See Paras Ram v. Sh&rjit 
(1887), 9 AIL 661. The encroaching 
coparcener eannot bo prosecuted for 
criminal trespass : Emperor v. Earn 
Sarup (1014), 36 AIL 474. 

* Biswwrriiblia/r bal (Lala) v. Raja- 



ram (1869), 3 B. L. R. App. 07 ; 10 
W. R. C. R. 140, note ; Brahma?noyi 
CJiowdhurain (Srimati) v. Gopi Mohan 
Roy Clwwdhury (1910), 15 C. W. N. 
188 ; Joy Chunder Ruklttt v. Bippro 
Churn Rukhit (1886), 14 Calc. 230 ; 
Nocury Lall Chuckerbutty v. Bindabun 
Chunder Chuckerbutty (1882), 8 Calc. 
708 ; i e. when the co-sharers cannot 
bo adequately compensated except by 
removal of the building: Mitra's 
" Law of Joint Property, 9 * 2nd cd., p. 
233. 

3 Nowry Lall Chuckerbutty v. 
Bindal)un Chunder Chuckerbutty (1887), 
8 Calc. 708. 

* Port, p. 278. 

5 See Collector of 24 Pergunnahs 
v. Delnath Hoy Chowdhry (1874), 21 
W. R, C. R. 222 ; Jotce Hoy v. Bhee- 
chuck Meah (1873), 20 W. R. (X B. 
288. 

6 Luchmeswar Singh Bahadoor (Ma- 
harajah Sir) v. Manowar Hossein 
{Sheik) (1891), 19 I. A. 48, at p. 57 ; 
19 Calc. 253, at p. 264. Boo R. C. 
Mitra's "Law of Joint Property,' 7 
2nd cd., pp. 230, 231. 



CHAP. VI.] RIGHTS OF OOPABCENERS. 233 

own habitation, he should not bo treated as a trespasser. So also if a 
sharer seeing one of his co-sharers erect a house on a piece of joint land 
stand by and make no objection, a Court of Equity will presume his 
acquiescence to the erection of the building. From these two fundamental 
principles it follows that if the land covered by the building does not exceed 
appreciably the area that would represent such co-sharer's portion, and, 
further, if the objecting co -sharers do not object to the erection of the 
buildings in proper time, a Court of Equity will not favour the claim. But 
if in the case where the sharer makes his own selection the objection of the 
other co-sharers is made at or before the commencement of the building 
operations, a Court of Equity will favour the objectors, unless the portion 
taken up approximately represents the proper share of such co -sharer." 1 
(8ee that work as to the authorities which establish this proposition.) 

In the absence of an express agreement no claim for rent can be made 
against a coparcener occupying coparcenary property. 2 

A coparcener cannot, without the consent of the other coparceners, 
appropriate a share of the proceeds of family property for the purpose of 
an investment for himself, 3 

An individual member of a Mitaksliara family cannot sue 
for a share of the coparcenary property, 4 but he can sue to be 
put in possession jointly with his coparceners. 5 

There is also authority that he may sue a trespasser alone. 8 At any 
rate, he may do so if he joins his coparceners as parties. 

According to all the schools a coparcener is not entitled to sue for a 
declaration as to the amount of his share, 7 or to sue his coparceners for a 
portion of the property held by them. 8 His remedy is by partition. 

The possession of coparcenary property by one coparcener 

1 See Shadi v. Anup Singh (1889), 3 Bom. L. R. 598 ; Ramchandra 
12 All. 436. Kashipatkar v. Damodar Trimbak 

2 Gobind Chunder Ghose v. Earn Patkar (1895), 20 Bom. 467. As to 
Ooomar Dey (1875), 24 W. R. C. R. parties to suits, see post, pp. 267, 268 
393. See Alladinee Dossee (Sree- 6 See Radha Proshad Wasti v. 
mutty)v.Sreenath Chunder J3o$e (1873), Esuf (1881), 7 Calc. 414; 9 0, L. 
20 W. R. C. R. 258. R. 76 ; Durwn Singh v. DurUjoy > 

* See Bona Kooree (Mussamut) v. Singh, 9 C. L. J. 623. As to a suit 
Bool&e Singh (Baboo) (1867), 8 W. R. by a manager, see Muhammad 
C. R. 182. Sadik v. Khedan Lai (1916), 1 Pat. 

* Rajaram Tewari v. Lachman L. J. 154, and post, pp. 267, 278, 279. 
Prasad (1869), 4 B. L. R. A. C. 118 ; * Root Goramv. Teza Gorain (1870), 
12 W. R. C. R. 478 ; Phoolbas Kooer 4 B. L. R. App. 90. 

v. Juggessur Sahoy (Lalla) (1872), 18 8 Trimbak Dixit v. Narayan Dixit 

W. R. C. R. 48 ; 'Chyet Narain Singh (1874), 11 Bom. H. C. 69 ; Button 

v. Bunwaree Singh (1875), 23 W. R. Monee Dutt v. Brojomohun Dutt 

C. R. 395; Jugoo Lall Oopadtya v (1874), 22 W. R. C. R. 333 ; Gobind 

Manoohyr Lall Oopadhya (1872), 19 Chunder Ghose v. Ramcoomar Dey 

W, R* 0. R. 43. (1875), 24 W. R. C. R. 393. 

5 Wararibhai Vaghjibai v. Eamchod 9 Sec post, Chap. IX. 
Premclwnd (J901), 26 Bom, 141; 



234 



BIGHTS OF COPARCENERS, 



[CHAP. vi. 



enures for the benefit of all the coparceners, so limitation does 
not begin to run against a cop c arcener until he has been excluded 
from possession. 1 

Limitation, A suit by a person excluded from joint family property to enforce a 

right to share therein must be brought within twelve years from the time 
when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. 2 

If he does not bring a suit within that time, the exclusion bars his right 
to relief. 3 

Where it is admitted or proved that the plaintiff was a member of a 
joint family, the burden of proving his exclusion, and his knowledge of 
such exclusion, for the period which would bar his right, lies upon the 
person asserting such exclusion. 4 

Adverse It is competent to a coparcener resisting a claim to property, which 

possession. k e | s holding separately and which is alleged to be joint, to prove that he 
has acquired a right by adverse possession for twelve years. 5 But as 
the possession of one member of a joint family is the possession of all, 6 
he cannot so acquire such rights unless he proves that the right has been 
claimed or openly asserted by other members of the family, and denied by 
him at least twelve years before suit, 7 

Similarly, a person entitled to property as his separate acquisition 
may lose his right in consequence of the family having held possession 
adverse to his exclusive right for a period of twelve years, 8 

Contribution, When a coparcener applies his own funds for the purpose of paying off 
a debt due by the family, he may be entitled to contribution. 9 

II. A coparcener is entitled to receive from the coparcenary 



1 See cases, below, note 6. 

8 Act IX. of 1908, Sched. L, art. 
127. See SeUam v. Ohinnammal 
(1901), 24 Mad. 441, and cases cited 
in ILN. Mitra's " Law of Limitation," 
in the notes to the above article. 

8 Babaji Akoba v. Dattu Laxman 
(1912), 37 Bom. 64; 14 Bom. L. R. 
923. 

* Jivanbhat v. Anibhat (1896), 22 
Bom. 259 ; KrisJinabai v. Khangowda 
(1893), 28 Bom. 197, at p. 202; 
Dinkar Sadashiv v. Bhikaji Sadashiv 
(1887), 11 Bom. 365; Han v. Maruti 
(1882), C Bom. 741; Malkappa v. 
Mudkappa (1912), 37 Bom. 84 ; 14 
Bom. L. R. 931. 

5 Bainee Singh v. Bhurjh Singh 
(1866), 1 Agra, 162 ; Runjeet Singh 
v. Mafad Ali (1868), 3 Agra, 222. See 
BftflWM Oovind Ouravi v. Vithoji Ladoji 
<?mw(1866),3Bom. H. C.A. C. 170; 
Pwbxti r. Mwiaffar Ali Khan (1912), 
34 All 288 ; 10 Q. W. N. 1913 ; 14 
Bom. IX R 460. 



6 Jogendra Nath fiai v. Baladeo 
Das (1907), 35 Gale. 961 ; 12 C. W. N. 
127; Asud Ali Khan (Sheikh) v. 
Akbar Ali Khan (1877), 1 C L. R. 364 ; 
Yusaf AH Khan v. Chtibbee Singh 
(1873), 5 N. W. P. 122 ; Malkappa v. 
Mudkappa (1912), 37 Bom. 84; 14 
Bom. L. R. 931 ; Ahmad Raza Khan 
v. Ham Lai (1914), 37 All. 203. This 
has, of course, no application after a 
separation; Yaidyanatlia Aiyar v, 
Aiyasamy Aiyar (1908), 32 Mad. 191. 



Kylash Chunder Gungopadhya (1875), 
25 W. R. a R. 53 ; Sakhaldas Bundo- 
padhya v. Indru Monee Debi (1877), 
1 C. L. R. 155; Shamrao (Bhaiji) v. 
Hajimiya Mohamad (1911), 14 Bom. 
L. R. 314. See lakenath Singh 
v. Dhakeshwar Prosad Narayan Singh 
(1914). 200. W. N. 51. 

Post, p. 246. 

9 See Indian Contract Act (IX. of 
1872), s. 69. R. 0. Mitra's " Law of 
Joint Property," 2nd ed., chap. vi. 



CHAP. VI.] EIGHTS OF COPARCENERS. 235 

property maintenance for himself, his wifo, and his children, 1 
and for such persons as ho is legally or morally bound to support, 2 
and provision for all usual and proper religious observances 
which should be performed by himself and such persons, 3 also 
provision for the education of his sons, and for the marriage 
expenses of his daughters, 4 or of other female dependents of his 
family. 

As to the amount of maintenance, see ante, p, 87. 

As to the maintenance of such persons after the death of the coparcener, 
see post, p. 271. 

All ancestral property is, while it remains undisposed of and unparti- 
tioned, charged with the maintenance of all persons who arc entitled to 
maintenance therefrom 5 in the same sense that the maintenance of a 
widow is charged upon the estate of her husband. 6 

As to maintenance from a tarwad, see Maradevi v. Pammaklea (1011), 
3C Mad. 203 ; KunM v. Ammu (1912), ibid., 501 ; MutM Amim v. Gopadan 
(1912), ibid., 593, 

As to maintenance from the property of a tavazbi, see NaJcu Ammo, v 
Rctgkaw Menon (1912), 38 Mad. 79. 

III. A coparcener is entitled to receive such information 
as he may require as to the management of the property, 7 and 
to be consulted in matters of great importance thereto, such 
as the sale or mortgage of the property, or of any portion thereof. 

1 Ayyavu Muppanar v. Niladotchi among the three superior castes, the 
Ammal (1862), 1 Mad. H. C. 45; marriage of the minor girls of the 
" Manu," chap. ix. para. 108 ; " Na- family, where such marriage must 
rada Smriti," chap. ix. paras. 26-28 ; be celebrated before the girls ariive 
Bhattacharya's " Law of the Joint at the age of puberty (sec ante, p. 
Family," pp. 280, 281. It has been 33), and other religious ceremonies 
hold (12 Bom. H. G. 90, note) that a enjoined by the sacred writings, neccs- 
coparcener who can sue for partition sary to bo performed at stated times 
cannot sue for maintenance, but it is and the non-performance of which 
submitted that there is no reason would be a cause of sm, or forfeiture 
why he should be forced to such a of caste, or would lower the position 
proceeding. As to daughters, see of the family," K. K. Bhattacharya's 
Mankoonwur v. BJiugoo (1822), 2 Borr. " Law of the Joint Family," p. 277. 
139, at p. 144 ; ante, p 207. As to * Ante, pp. 52, 53. See Vaikuntam 
sisters, see " Yajnavalkya," bk. ii. Ammangar v. Kallapiran Ayyangar 
chap. v. para. 124A. (1900), 23 Mad. 512. 

2 Ante, pp. 206-212. "Narada 5 Shib Dayee v. Doorga Pershad 
Smriti," chap. xiu. paras. 26-28, (1872), 4 N. W. P. H. 0, 63. As to 
33 ; K. K. Bhattacharya's " Law of impartible property, see MalUJcarjuna 
the Joint Family," p. 293 ; B. C. Prasada Nayudu (Raja Yarlagadda) 
Mitra's "Law of Joint Property," v. Durga Prosada Nayudu (Raja 
2nd ed., pp. 57-59. Yarlagadda) (1900), 27 I. A. 151 ; 24 

3 " The indispensable duties alluded Mad. 147; 5 C. W. N. 74 ; 2 Bom. 
to in the ' Mitakshara,' are undoubt- L. R. 945. 

odly the annual sradhs, the ceremony 6 Ante, pp. 89-93. 
of investiture with sacred thread 7 See post, chap. vii. 



236 DEATH OP COPARCENEB, [CHAP. VI, 

IV. A coparcener is entitled to sue to impeach and to 
restrain the acts of tho manager or of other coparceners which 
arc in excess of their powers. 1 

V. Except that under the Mitakshara school of law there 
can be no partition directly between grandfather and grandson 
while the father is alive, or between great-grandfather and 
great-grandson when the father or grandfather is alive, every 
adult coparcener is entitled to obtain a partition of the property 
when he desires to be separated from the coparcenary.- 

This right exists as long as there is a joint tenancy. 8 
As to minors, see post, pp. 328, 329. 

Where father " The rights of the coparceners in ... an undivided Hindu 
is manager, f am jiy governed by the law of the Mitakshara, which consists 
of a father and his sons, do not differ from those of the co- 
parceners in a like family, which consists of undivided brethren, 
except so far as they are affected by the peculiar obligation of 
paying their father's debts, which the Hindu law imposes upon 
sons/ and the fact that the father is in all cases naturally, and, 
in the case of infant sons, necessarily, the manager of the joint 
family estate." G 

Effect of death On the death of a coparcener, subject to the Mitakshara 

coparcener. gc j 100 j O f j aw ^ jy g j n terest in the coparcenary property 6 does not 

pass by inheritance. It lapses, or, as it is generally put, his 

rights pass by survivorship to the other coparceners, 7 subject 

1 Pos^p.304. ScoSurajBunsiKoer 101 ; 5 Calc. 148, at p. 165; 4 0. L. 

v. SJieo Proshad Singh (1879), 6 I. A. R. 220, at p. 233. See Subbayya v. 

88, at p. 101 ; 5 Calc. 148, at p. 165; Surayya (1887), 10 Mad. 251, at p. 

4 C. L. R. 226, at p. 233 ; Anant 254. Post, p. 269. 
Ramrav v. Gopal Balvant (1894), 19 fl Whether ancestral or not, Go- 

Bom 269; Ganpat v Annaji (1898), bardhan Salm v. BulTclian Mahton 

23 Bom. 144; Ramchandia Kashi (1916), 1 Pat. L. J. 190. 
PatJcar v. Damodhar Tnmbak Putkar 7 Rajnarain Singh v, Heeralal 

(1895), 20 Bom. 467; Gopee Sishen (1878), 5 Calc 142; Bhimul Doss 

Oossain v. Hem Chunder Gossain v. Ghoonee Latt (1877), 2 Calc 379 

(1870), 13 W. R. R 322, at p. 323 Dcbi Parshad v. TJiakur Dial (1875)' 

2 Post, chap. via. He is not entitled 1 All. 105; Janhbai v. Shrinivas 

to sue only for a declaration of his Oanesh (1913), 38 Bom. 120 ; 15 Bom. 

right to a share, or to claim otherwise L. R. 853. To the exclusion of the' 

than in a partition suit property held widow, Pariah Kumari Debt (Sri- 

by the family as joint, ante, p. 233. mail Hani) v. JagoAiB Chunder Dhdbal 

* BMeshar Das v. Ram Prasad (1902), 29 I. A. 82, at p. 96 29 

(W06) f 28 AIL 627. Calc. 433, at p. 452 ; 6 0. W. N/490, 

' * ** <**P- Vlli - at p. 494 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 365 ; or 

5 Qfirttj Bunsi &oer v. Sheo Prosliad other heir,see Bhimul Doss v. Choonee 

(1879); 6: 1. A. 88, at pp. 100, Latt (1877), 2 Calc. 377 ; DeU Parshad 



CttAP. VI.] DEATH 01? COPAItCENER, !&7 

to the rule that where he leaves male issue they represent his 
rights to a partition. 1 His death also has the effect of introducing 
into the coparcenary one who is excluded by the rule which 
limits the coparcenary to four generations. 3 
This process continues until partition. 3 

According to the principles of Hindu law, there is eoparcenaryship 
between the different members of a united family, and survivorship 
following upon it. There is community of interest and unity of possession 
between all the members of the family, and upon the death of any one 
of them the others may well take by survivorship that in which they had 
during the deceased's lifetime a common interest and a common posses- 
sion. 4 

The right to partition determines the right to take by survivorship. 3 
This principle of survivorship applies also to a tarwacl* 

Where there is no coparcener, property, which would other- 
wise be coparcenary, passes by inheritance to the heirs of the 
deceased. 7 There is no inheritance while there is a surviving 
coparcener, however remotely connected with the deceased. 8 

In a case governed by the Bengal school of law the interest 
of the coparcener passes on his death by will or inheritance. 9 

Where there is a joint family business the death of a member of the 
family does not per se dissolve the business. 10 

v. Thalcur Dial (1875), 1 All. 105 ; p. 615 ; 2 W. R. P. C. 31, at pp. 39, 

Sadabart Prasad Sahu v. Foolbash 40. 

Koer (1869), 3 B. L. R. P. B. 31 ; 12 5 VenJcayamma, Gavu (Maja Clidi- 

W. R. F. B. 1 ; S. C. Sudabart P&rshad kam) v. Venlcataramanayyamma (Raja 

Salioo v. Lotf Ali Khun (1870), 14 ChMani) (1902), 29 I. A. 156, at 

W. R. C. R. 339 ; Benee Per shad v p. 165 ; 25 Mad. 678, at p. 687 ; 7 

Mohaboodhy (Mussamut) (1867), 7 C, W. N. 1, at p. 8 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 657. 

W. R. C. R. 292; Mooniah (Mussa- Sec Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Bamchund 

mut) v. Teeknoo (Mussamut) (1867), 7 Dutt (1896), 23 I. A. 37, at p. 44; 23 

W. R. C. R. 440 ; Ratan Dabee v. Calc. 670, at p. 679. 
ModhooBoodun Mohapator (1878), 2 6 Ummanga v. Appadorai Patter 

0. L. R. 328. The enlarged share is (1910), 34 Mad. 387. 
subject to "the same incidents as the 7 Post, p. 298. 
original share : Gungoomull v. Bun- 8 Mam Narain Singh (JRajctJi) v. 

seedhur (1869), 1 N. W. P. H. C. 170. Pertum Singh (1875), II B. L. R. 

TheCuratorsAct(XIX.of 1841)hasno 397, at p. 404; 20 W. R. C. R. 189, 

application: SatoKoerv. Oopal Sahu at p. 191; Haian Dabee v. IlodJioo- 

(1907), 34 Calc. 929 ; 12 C. W. N. 65. soodun MoTiapator (1878), 2 C, L. R. 

1 Post, p. 327. See Manjanatha v. 328. 

Narayana (1882), 5 Mad. 362. 9 Ante, pp. 224, 225. 

2 Ante, pp. 225, 226. 10 Samalbhai Nathubha% v. Some- 
8 Rajnarain Singh v* Heeralall shvar (1880), 5 Bom. 38, at p. 40 ; In 

(1878), 5 Calc. 142. the matter of Haroon Mahomed (1890), 

* Katama Natchiar v. Rajah of 14 Bom. 189, at p. 194. As to the death 

Shivagung (1863), 9 M. I. A. 543, at of the manager, see $ost, pp. 275, 270, 



288 



COPARCENARY PROPERTY, 



[CHAP. vi. 



i } l itak " Under tho Mitakshara school, the shares of coparceners are 
not defined, not defined until there be a separation, or the members of 
the family agree among themselves with regard to particular 
property that it shall henceforth be the subject of ownership 
in defined shares. 1 

Tho removal of coparceners by death, and the accession of 
now coparceners by birth, is continually affecting the interest 
of the coparceners to the extent that it increases or diminishes 
the share, which, if there were a partition, would be allotted to 
thorn respectively, but until separation no coparcener has a 
greater interest in the coparcenary property than any one of 
the other coparceners. 

In the veil-known case of Appovicr v. Rama Sitbba Atyan (1866), 2 
Lord West bury said, "According to the true notion of an undivided 
family in Hindu law, no individual member of that family, whilst it 
remains undivided, can predicate of the joint and undivided property, 
that he, that particular member, has a certain definite share. No individual 
member of an undivided family could go to the place of the receipt of 
rent and claim to take from the collector or receiver of the rents a certain 
definite share. The proceeds of undivided property must be brought, 
according to the theory of an undivided family, to the common chest or 
purse, and then dealt with according to the modes of enjoyment by the 
members of an undivided family." 3 

A coparcener in a Mitakshara family has no specific property in the 
coparcenary property, but only an interest which may ripen into specific 
property on a partition. 4 



Nature of 



COPAECENARY 

Coparcenary property consists of 

(a) All property s in which the members of a joint family 
have a common interest and a common possession, and therefore 
a right to partition. 



) chap. ix. 

8 11 M. I. A. 75, at pp. 89*00; 
8 W. E. P. C. 1. 

8 As to the right to joint possession, 
Bcortwte, pp. 230*231. 

4 Sufoamanya Pandya Cholla 
F&laver v. Sim Subramtmya Pillai 
(189*), 17 Mad. 316, at p. 327. 

* This includes an occupancy hold- 
ing: 4ft$o&*> Singh v. Shmtwanth 



Nvtefaiatr v, Shivagunga 



(Rajah of} (1863), 9 M. I, A. 643, at 
p. 615 ; 2 W. K. P. C. 1, at pp. 39, 
40; Venkayamma Oaru (Raja Cheli* 
hint) v. Venkatarctmanayamma (Raja 
CMikani) (If 02), 29 I. A, 156, at 
p. 164 ; 25 Mad. 678, at p. 687 ; 7 
C. W. N. 1, at p 8; 4 Bom. L. R. 
057 ; KancHdas JOharamsey v, Ganga- 
bcti (190S), 32 Bom. 479; 10 Bom. 
L. E. 184. See Shamnarain v. Court 
of Wards (1873), 20 W. B. C. B. 197. 



CHAP. VI.] OOPAIIOENARY PROPERTY, 239 

" The principle o joint tenancy appears to be unknown to Hindu law, Property held 
except in the case of coparcenary between the members of an undivided i ointl y 
family," x I.e. in other cases the co-holders hold as tenants in common, 
as, for instance, in the case of a transfer to one member of a coparcenary 
and the widow of another member. 2 

Thus property acquired by a transfer to the members of the Jomt transfer, 
family jointly belongs to the coparcenary. 3 

Where property has been acquired jointly in business or Acquisitions 
otherwise by their joint labour by the members of a joint y 
family, even without resort to the family funds, 4 it is to be 
presumed to bo the property of the family as such, 5 but this 
presumption may be rebutted by proof that there was only an 
ordinary partnership, that is to say, a partnership which was 
the creature of contract, and not of birth and relationship, in 
which case the members would be entitled to share in accord- 
ance with their shares in the partnership, and there would be 
no rights of survivorship, or other incidents of coparcenary 
property. 6 

The presumption does not apply when the business is carried on by 
some only of the members of the family without any aid from the family 
funds. 7 

Mr. Mayne contends that in the case of property acquired by the joint 
exertions of the members of the family, but without any aid from the 
family funds, the sons would acquire no interest by birth. 8 "If the 

1 Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Earn funds, see post, pp. 246, 247. 
Chund Dutt (1896), 23 I. A. 37, at 5 Gopalasami ChM v. Aruwche- 
p. 44 ; 23 Calc. 670, at p. 679 ; Gopi lam Chetti (1903), 27 Mad. 32 ; Handas 
V. Jaldhara (Musammat) (1910), 33 Lafy v. Narotam (1912), 14 Bom. 
All. 41. As to a joint bequest, sec L. B 237, and cases below, note 6. 
Phillips and Trevelyaix's *' Hindu 6 See Rampershad Tewarry v. Sheo- 
Wills," 2nd cd., pp. 55, 56. churn Doss (1866), 10 M. I A. 490, 

2 Vteraraghava RMi v. Koto, Reddi at p. 506 ; Chatturbhooj Meghji v. 
(1916), 31 Mad. L. J. 465. Dhar<m$i Naranji (1884), 9 Bom. 

a RadJwbai v. Nancvrav (1879), 3 438, at p. 445; .fludarsaiwm Matetri 

Bom. 151. Cf. Transfer of Property v. Naraaimhulu Maistn (1901), 25 

Act (IV. of 1882), s. 45. Mad. 149, at p. 156; Ram Narain 

* See Rampershad T&warry v. Sheo- Nursing Doss v. Ram Chunder JanJcee 

churn Doss (1866), 10 M. I. A. 490, Loll (1890), 18 Calc. 86. For an 

at p. 506; Shamnarain v. Court of instance of a partnership between 

Wards (1873), 20 W. R. C. R. 197, members of a joint family- and a 

and cases note 6 below. See Colo- stranger, see Anant Ram v. Channu 

brooko's "Digest," vol. UL p. 386; Lai (1903), 25 All. 378. 

" Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 4, para. 7 Sudar&anam Maistri v. Nara- 

15; "Manu," chap. ix. para. 215. simhulu Maistri (1901), 25 Mad. 149. 

' $4* however, CMturbhooj Meghji 8 " Hindu Law," 8th ed, p. 355, 

vMtharamai Narav^i (1884), 9 Bom. Seo also Chatturbhooj Meghji v. 

438, ait pp. 4^5 ? 44$. As to property Dkaramsi Naranji (1884), 9 Bom. 

acquired witli the aid 6 family 438, at pp. 445, 446. 



>JiO COfcAttCBNAUY HtOl'KUTY. [ciIAl?. VI. 

joint acquirers intended to hold the property so acquired as co-owners, 
and not as joint family property in the Mitakshara sense of the expression, 
this view would be perfectly sound. But if, as supposed, the property 
was acquired by all the members of the undivided family, by their joint 
labour, it would, in the absence of any indication of intention to the 
contrary, be owned by them ab joint family property, and in that case 
their male issue, who, by their birth, become members of such undivided 
family, necessarily acquire a right by birth in such property.' 1 * 

" It is clear that where a Hindu father starting upon nothing begins to 
earn money for himself, it does not necessarily follow because he may have 
infant children whom he feeds and clothes and houses, that he intends, or 
they expect, that his individual earnings should become a common fund, 
and so have all the legal incidents of joint family property. As the children 
grow up, particularly when they are associated with the father in his busi- 
ness, it becomes more and more difficult to define with any accuracy the 
point at which and the conditions under which accumulations of one kind 
become accumulations of the other." 2 

Gilt or devise It has been held that in the case of a gift or a devise to the 
members of a joint family, the property would not be held as 
coparcenary property, 3 but there is nothing to prevent a gift 
or devise to a joint family. 4 It is submitted that property 
given or devised to all the members of a joint family would in 
the absence of the expression of a contrary intention be 
coparcenary. 5 

It has been suggested e that the view submitted above might bo in- 
consistent with the Tagore case, 7 inasmuch as unborn persons might on 
birth obtain rights hi the coparcenary. Recent decisions as to a gift to 
a class, 8 and the provisions of the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 
1016 (post, pp. 536-539), negative this suggestion. 

1 Sudar&awm Maixtri v. Narasim- Bom. L. R. 102 ; Sudarsanam Mautri 
hulit Maistri (1901), 25 Mad. 149, at v. Narasmhulu Mautn (1901), 25 
pp. 155, 15G. Mad. 149, at pp. 154, 155. 

2 Haridas Lalji v. Xarotam (1911), 7 Juttendromohun Tagore v. Oanen- 
14 Bom. L. R. 237, at p. 243. dromdhun Tagore (1872), I. A. Sup. 

3 JKwJioriDulainv.MundraDubain Vol. 47; 9 B. L. E. 377; IS W. R. 
(1911), 33 AIL 665; Diwali (Bat) v. C. R. 359. 

Bcchardas (Patel) (1902), 2G Bom 445; 8 Bhagalati Barmanya v. Kali 

4 Bom. L. R. 102. Charan Singh (1911), 38 L A. 54 ; 

* Sndar^nam Maistri v. Nora- 38 Calc. 408 ; 15 C. W. N. 393 ; 13 

timhulu Maistri (1901), 25 Mad. 149, Bom. L. R. 375 ; S. C. in Court below 

at pp. 154, 155. (1905), 32 Calc. 992 ; 9 C W. N. 749 ; 

5 Ante, p. 238, note 6 ; p. 239, note Radha Prasad Mallick v. Ranimom 

1; Radhabai v, Nanarau (1879), 3 Dasi (1910), 38 Calc. 188 ; reversed on 

Bom. 151. See Yethimjulu Na^du v. another point (1908), 35 L A. 118; 

M uJcuntfiw Naidu (1905), 28 Mad. 363, 35 Calc. 896; 12 C. W. N. 729; 10 

at p. 369 ; Kuvtiiaclia Umma v. Kutti Bom. L. R. 604; Bishen Chcmd (Rai) 

Mammi Kajee (1892), 16 Mad. 201. v. Awatia Koer (1883), 11 1. A. 164 ; 

Diw&i (Bai) v. Bechardas (Patel) 6 All. 560 ; Ram Loll Sett v. Kanailall 

(1902), 26 Bom. 44$, at p. 448; 4 Sett (1886), 12 Calc, 663; Advocate- 



CHAP. VI.] COPARCENARY PROPERTY. 241 

Whether property, which may have been ancestral, but has been Acquired by 
acquired by virtue of a compromise or arrangements belongs to the co- com P romia e* 
parcenary depends upon the nature of the arrangement. 1 

Property inherited from the maternal grandfather by two Maternal 
or more grandsons (by the same daughter) living as members |roperty her ' s 
of a joint family, 2 and holding the same jointly, is, in a case 
governed by the Mitakshara law, on a similar footing. 

It is submitted that where the grandsons are by different daughters 
the property would not be coparcenary, as they belong to different families. 3 

A Pull Bench of the Madras High Court has declined to extend this 
principle to property inherited from a woman by her sons as heirs of her 
stndhan * or to property inherited by sister's sons, and expressed their 
inability to apply it "to cases other than those in which the inheritance 
devolves from a paternal or maternal male ancestor on his lineal descendants 
whether as ' unobstructed,' or as " obstructed heritage.' " 5 They point 
out that whereas the class of daughters' sons is incapable of being added to 
after the vesting, the class of sister's sons could be added to after the vesting 
by the birth of others. 6 

It is submitted that the principles enunciated by the Privy Council 7 
apply n ty to property held by the sons of one sister jointly. 

(b) In cases governed by the Mitakshara school of law, all Unob- 
property, whether movable or immovable, 8 and however g U ess?on 
originally acquired, 9 which is inherited by what is called 
" unobstructed heritage," 10 i.e. which is inherited from a 

General v. Karmali Eahimbai (1903), 36 Bom. 424 ; 14 Bom. L. R. 400. 

29 Bom. 133. See Phillips and 5 Karuppai Nachiar v. Sankarana* 

Trevelyan's " Law of Hindu Wills," rayanan Ghetty (1903), 27 Mad. 300, 

2nd cd., pp. 33, 34. at p. 314. 

1 Mahdbir Kower v. Julha Sing 6 Ibid., at p. 309. 

(1871), 8 B. L. B. 38 ; 16 W. JR. C. B. 7 Venkayamma Garu (Raja Cheli- 

221. kani) v. Venkataramanayyamma (Raja 

Venkayyamma Garu (Raja Cheli- Chehkani) (1902), 29 I. A. 156, 25 

kani) v. Venkataramanayyamma (Raja Mad. 678 ; 7 C. W. JS". 1 ; 4 Bom. 

OheUkani) (1902), 29 I. A. 156, at L. B. 657. 

pp. 164, 165; 25 Mad. 678, at p. 8 Jugmohandas MangaUas v. Sir 

687 ; 7 C. W. N. 1, at p. 8 ; 4 Bom. Mangaldas NaMbhoy (1886), 10 

L. B. 657 ; overruling Jasoda Xoer v. Bom. 528, at pp. 570-574. This 

Sheo Pershad Singh (1889), 17 Calo. includes a right of occupancy, Maha- 

33, and Saminadha Pittai v. Thaiiga- lir Prasad v. Basdeo Sirtgh (1884), 6 

thanni (1895), 19 Mad, 70 ; Vythinatha All. 234. 

Ayyar v. Yeggia Narayana Ayyar 9 Chatturbhooj Meghji v Dkaramsi 

(1903), 27 Mad. 382. As to the case Naranji (1884), 9 Bom. 438, at p. 

where a single grandson by daughter 450 ; Hardai Narain v. Haruck 

inherits, see post, pp. 242, 243 Dhari Singh (1882), 12 C. L B. 104. 

8 Vythinatha Ayyar v. Yeggia Nara- 10 Aprat&andha Daya (inheritance 

yana Ayyar (1903), 27 Mad. 382, at not liable to be obstructed) as distin- 

p.,335., guished from Sapratibandha Day a 

* The dame view was taken in (inheritance liable to be obstructed, 

, Parson (Bui) v. Somli (Bai) (1912), #o^,p.253). The distinction between 



242 



COPARCENARY PROPERTY, 



[CHAP, vi, 



natural or adopted J father, father's father, or father's father's 
father, is coparcenary property 2 as regards the issue of the 
person BO inheriting it. 3 

" In the 6 Hitakshara,* chap. i. s. 1 9 v. 3, heritage is said to be of two 
sorts, unobstructed^ or liable to obstruction. The wealth of the father 
or paternal grandfather becomes the property of his sons or of his grandsons 
in right of their being his sons or grandsons, and that is an inheritance 
not liable to obstruction. But property devolves on parents (or uncles), 
brothers, and the rest upon the demise of the owner, if there be no male 
issue; and thus the actual existence of a son and the survival of the 
owner are impediments to the succession; and, on their ceasing, tho 
property devolves on the successor in right of his being unole or brother. 
This is an inheritance subject to obstruction.' " 4 

Property inherited after the death of a. widow to whom it was assigned 
in lieu of maintenance is on the same footing. 5 

It is only the descendants of the person so inheriting, who acquire 
an interest in the property. Collateral relations who happen to be joint 
with such person acquire no such interest. 6 

inheritance It is unsettled whether property inherited from the maternal 
1 grandfather by a single grandson 7 is also coparcenary property. 

The Madras decisions hold that property inherited by a daughter's son 



Allotted to 
widow for } 
maintenance 

Collateral 
relations. 



the two forms of heritage is tho same 
as the distinction between inheritance 
by an heir at law, and inheritance by 
an heir presumptive. In the latter 
case there is a possibility of a nearer 
heir being born. In the former case 
there is no such possibility. 

1 This has no application to pro- 
perty inherited by a person adopted 
according to the lUatom system (ante, 
p. 160) s ChaUa Papi Iteddi v. ChdUa 
Koti Reddi (1872), 7 Mad. H. 0. 25. 
See Ramaknstna v. Subbakka (1889), 
12 Had. 442. 

2 Nund Coomar Lall (Baboo) v. 
Sazeeoddeen Hossein (1872), 10 B L. 
R. 183 ; 18 W. R. C. R. 477 ; NaUa- 
iambi CJietti (Rayadwr) v. Mukunda 
CMti (Kayadur) (1868), 3 Mad. H. C. 
455 ; Jawahir Singh v. Guyan Singh 
(1868), 3 Agra, H. C. 78; Jugmo* 
handas Mangaldas v. Sir Mangaldas 
Natbvbhoy (1886), 10 Bom. 528; 
Gungq Prosad v. Ajudhia Pcrshad 
Singh (1881), 8 Calc. 131, at p. 134; 
9 C. 1. R. 417, at pp. 421, 422. See 
also Josoda Row v. Sheo Pershad 
Singh (188$), 17 Calc. 3 (overruled 



by the Judicial Committee on another 
point, ante, p. 241) ; Eamnamtn Singh 
(Rajah) v. Pertum Singh (1873), 11 
B. L. R, 397, at p. 401 ; 20 W. R. 0. 
R. 189, at p. 190 ; Janki v. Nandram 
(1888), 11 All. 194. Seo J. 0. 
Ghose's " Hindu Law," 2nd ed., pp. 
375, 376; " Viramitrodaya," G. C. 
Sarkar's translation, p. 72. 

3 (hurumurtU Eeddi v. Gurammat 
(1908), 32 Mad. 86, at p. 88. It is 
otherwise as regards other persons, 
see Janki v. Nandram (1888), 11 All. 
194, at p. 198. 

4 Nund Coomar Lall (Baboo) v, 
Eazeeooddeen Hosse^'n, (1872), 10 B. 
L. R. 183, at p. 191 ; 18 W. R. C. R. 
477, at p. 479 ; Debt Parshad v. Tha- 
kur Dial (1875), 1 AIL 105, at p. 
112. 

6 Beni Parshad v, Puran Chand 
(1895), 23 Calc. 262, at p. 273. 

6 See Gopal Dutt Pandey v. Gopal- 
lal Misser, Ben. S. D, A , 1859, p. 
1314 ; Janfa v. Nandram (1888), 11 
AIL 194, at p. 198. 

7 As to where there are several 
grandsons, see ante, p. 24J, 



CHAP. VI.] 



COPARCENARY PROPERTY, 



243 



is coparcenary. * Tlio Bengal and Allahabad High Court s have entertained a 
different view, 2 and there is no reported decision in Bombay on the subject. 3 

The Judicial Committee has held that such property is not "self- 
acquired." 4 This expression may, however, not have been used in. a 
technical sense. 5 In a more recent case a the Judicial Committee said, 
"Unless the lands came to Dhanna Singh by descent from a lineal male an- 
cestor in the male line, . . . they are not deemed ancestral in Hindu Law.'* 

Another decision of the Judicial Committee dealt with the rights of 
daughter's sons, living jointly, 7 but that case is distinguishable. 8 

See " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. I, paras. 3, 5, 21, 2 1, 27, 33 ; s. 5, paras. 
2, 3, 5, 9, 11. According to Mr. H. T. Colebrooko's translation of the 
" Mitakshara " separate property means *' that which has been acquired by 
the coparcener himself without any detriment to the goods of his father or 
mother." * 

Mr. J. C. Ghose ("Hindu Law," 2nd ed., p, 375) points out that Mr. 
Colebrooke's translation of chap. i. s. 1, para. 27, of the " Mitakshara," in 
which he says that " it is a settled point that property in the paternal or 
ancestral estate is by birth," is erroneous, the words really being " paternal 
or grandpaternaL" It is submitted that according to the better view 
property inherited from a maternal grandfather is not coparcenary except in 
the case of grandsons who are living in coparcenary. 10 



1 Vythinatha Ayi/ar v. Teggia Net- 
rayana Ayyar (1903), 27 Mad. 382 ; 
Rangammal v. Echammal (1898), 22 
Mad. 305; Karuppai Nachiar v. 
Sankaranarayanan Chetty (1903), 27 
Mad. 300, at pp. 313, 314 ; Mitttayan 
Chetti v. Sangilt Vira Pandia Ckinna 
TamUar (1879), 3 Mad, 370 (this 
question did not arise on appeal 
in this case (1882), 9 1 A. 128; 
6 Mad 1 ; 12 C. L. B. 169) ; Siraganga 
Zemindar v. Lakshmana (1885), 9 
Mad. 188, at p. 190. These last two 
cases were doubted in Venkafara- 
manayamma Garu (Sri Raja Chelikam) 
v. Appa Ran Bahadur Gam (1897), 
20 Mad. 207, at p. 219, which was 
reversed on a different point by the 
Judicial Committee ; see Venkay- 
yamma Garu (Raja Chelikam) v. 

Venkataramanayyamma (Raja Cheli* 
font) (1902), 29 I. A. 156 ; 25 Mad. 

678 ; 7 C. W. N. 1 ; 4 Bom, L. B. 

657. 

2 Jasoda Koer v. Slieopershad Singh 

(1889), 17 Calc. 33, at p. 38 (differed 
from on another point in Venkayamma 

Garu (Raja Chehkam) v. Vcnlatara- 

Wianayyamma (Raja Chelikam) (1902), 

29 L A. 156 ; 25 Mad. 678 ; 4 Bom. 

L. B. 657; Jam-no, Prasad v. Ram, 

Pwfap (1907), 29 All. 667. 
gee ^(pKvftta* Gkwpatrav jttotr* 



yavan v. Achrafbai (1886), 12 Bom. 
122, at p. 134. 

4 Mwttayan Chettiar v. Sangili Vira 
Pandia CMnnafam&iar (1882), 9 I A. 
128, at p. 143; 6 Mad. 1, at p. 16; 
12 C. L. B. 169, at p. 182. In the 
Court below, the High Court held 
(Muitayan Ghetti v. Sangili Vira 
Pandia Chintm Tambiar, 3 Mad. 370, 
at p. 375) that the sons could not 
interfere with their father's action 
with regard to it. but there is, it is . 
submitted, no reason for this distinc- 
tion. 

5 Post, pp. 248, 249 

6 Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh (1908), 
35 L A 206, at p. 211; 35 Calc. 
3039, at p. 1045; 12 Q W. N. 1049, 
at p. 1052 ; 10 Bom. L. B. 790. 

7 Venkayamma Garu (Raja Chdi- 
kani) v. Venkataramanayyamma (Raja 
Chetikani) (1902),*29 I. A. 156; 25 
Mad. 678 ; 4 Bom. L. R. 657. 

8 Jamna Prasad v. Ram Partap 
(1907), 29 All. 667. 

9 Chap. i. s. 4, para. 2. The words 
" or mother " having been interpolated 
by the " Mitakshara " in the text of 
Yajnavalkya"(bk. U. v. 118); see 
B. C. Mifcra's "Law of Joint Pro- 
perty," 2nd ed.> p. 43. 

10 See ante, p. 241. 



244 COPABCENABY PROPERTY. [CHAP. VI. 

shares (c) In cases governed bv the Mitakshara school of law, the 

allotted on , , ,-, , , , . f , 

partition. snare of coparcenary property allotted to any member on parti- 
tion becomes coparcenary property as regards his issue, 1 whether 
such issue were or were not born at the time of partition. 2 

As to the rights of a surviving member of a coparcenary, see post, 
p. 298. 

The circumstance that the person to whom the property is allotted 
discharges it from encumbrances does not alter its nature. 3 If the person 
to whom the property has been allotted has no issue, it passes to his 
heir, 4 

Gift or devise (d) Self-acquired property, given or devised by a Hindu 
y a er * governed by the Mitakshara school of law to a son is, according 
to the High Courts of Bengal and Madras, in the absence of any 
contrary intention appearing from the gift or will, 5 to be taken 
to be coparcenary property, so far as the issue of that son are 
concerned. 6 The Bombay and Allahabad High Courts repudiate 
such presumption, 7 

Where coparcenary property purports to bo given or devised to a son 
or other coparcener its character would be obviously unchanged, 8 even 
where such gift or devise is permissible. 9 

1 Lai Bahadur v. Kanlmia Lai dm Tevar (1901), 24 Mad, 429 ; 
(1907), 34 L A. 65 ; 29 All. 244 ; 11 Muddun Oopal TMkoor v. Earn Bulcsh ' 
C. W. JSf. 417 ; 9 Bom L. R. 597 ; Pandey (1863), 6 W. R. C. R. 71 ; 
Chatturbhooj Meghji v. Dharamsi Hazari Matt Babu v. Abamnath 
JVam?yi(1884),9Bom.438; J 4^r7wom Adhurjya (1912), 17 C. W. N. 280. 
Deyi v. Ghoiudhry Sib Narain Kur See Tara GTwnd v. Beeb Mam (1866), 
(1877), 3 Gale. 1 ; Muddun Gopal 3 Mad. H. G. 50. 

TTtakoor v. Bam BuksJt Pandey (1863), 7 See Nanalhai Oanpatrav Dkaira- 

6 W. R. C. R. 71 ; Lakshmibai v. yavan v. AcJiratbai (1886), 12 Bom. 

Oanpat Mordba (1868), 5 Bom. H. 0. 122, at pp. 131, 132. (As in this 

0. C. J. 129 ; Mewa Koonw&r (Ranee) case the devise was to the sons jointly* 
v. Oudh Beharee Loll (Lalla) (1867), the property was coparcenary, ante, 
2 Agra, 311. See Khandulai v. p. 240.) Jugmohandas Mangaldas v. 
Pirbhai (1900), 2 Bom. L. R. 76. Sir Mangaldas NatJmbJioy (1886), 

2 In Adurmoni Deyi v. CJiowdhry 10 Bom. 528 ; Parsotam Boo Tantia 
S^l Narain Kur (1877), 3 Calc. 1, the v. JanJci Bai (1907), 29 All. 354. 

son was not born at the time of the 8 See Tara Chand v. fieeb Bam 

partition. (1866), 3 Mad. H. C. 50, at p. 55 ; 

3 Visalatchi Ammal v. Annasamy Hardai Narain v. Haruck DJtari Singh 
Sastry (1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 150. (1882), 12 C. L. R. 104; Nanomi 

* See Bejai Bahadur Singh v. Babuasin(Mussamut)v.ModunMohun 
Bhupindar Bahadur Singh (1895), 22 (judgment of High Court, 1882), 13 

1. A. 139 ; 17 All. 456. I. A. 1, at pp. 5, 6 ; 13 Calc. 21. 

* In Laksmibai v. Ganpat Moroba * See Lafahman Dada NaiJc v. 
(1S6'8), 5 Bom. H. G. 0. C. 128, the Bamchandra Dada NaiTc (1876), 1 

va s given to the grandsons Bom. 561, at p. 563 ; affirmed on 
appeal (1880 ), 7 I. A. 181; 5 Bom. 
* v* Rmachan- 48 ; 7 C. L. B. 320. 



CHAP, VI.] 



OOPAIIOENAHY PROPERTY. 



(e) The joint property of reunited coparceners. 1 Reunion. 

,(/) Property which was originally the separate 2 property Property 
of an individual member of a joint family, but has been coparcenary, 
treated by him as coparcenary property, belongs to the 
coparcenary. 3 

As, for instance, where the head of the family kept one account of his 
ancestral and self -acquired property. 4 When the funds are once intermixed 
they cannot be separated. 5 

Where the members of a family put their separate earnings 
into the joint stock, the proceeds of such earnings are to be 
presumed to be joint. 6 The treatment must be such as to show 
unmistakably an intention to throw the property into the 
common stock. Where it is plain- that no gift can have been 
intended, none can be inferred. 7 

A mere grant of a portion of self -acquired property for the maintenance 
of a son would not make the property coparcenary. 8 



1 Jasoda Koer v. Sheo PersJiad 
Bingh (1889), 17 Calc. 33, at p. 38; 
Narasimha Charlu (Safoudrala Varaha) 
v. Venkata Singaramma (Samudrala) 
(1909), 33 Mad. 165. As to reunion, 
soe post, pp. 359, 360. 

8 Post, pp. 248 et scq. 

* Sethuramaswamiar v. Meruswa* 
miar (1909), 34 Mad. 4=70 ; Gopala- 
sami v. Chznnasami (1884), 7 Mad. 
458; Krishnaji Mahadev Mahajan 
v. Moro Mahadev Mahajan (1890), 
15 Bom. 32, at p. 39; Sudar- 
sanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Mai- 
stri (1901), 25 Mad. 149, at p. 154 ; 
Tottempudi Venkataratnan v. Tottem- 
pudi Seshamma (1903), 27 Mad. 228. 
See Venkayyamma Garu (Raja Cheh- 
Jcani) v. Venkataramanayyamma (Raja 
CheUkani) (1902), 29 I. A. 156, at 
p. 166 ; 25 Mad. 678, at p. 688 ; 7 
0. W. N. 1, at pp. 9, 10 ; 4 Bom. 
L. R. 657 ; Shankar Baksh v. Hardeo 
Baksh (1888), 16 I. A. 71 ; 16 Calc. 
397 ; Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal (1876), 
3 I. A. 259 ; 26 W. K 0. R 55 ; 
Hardeo Bux (Thakoor) v. Jawahir 
Singh (1877), 4 I. A 178 ; 3 Calc. 
522 ; S. C. (1879), 6 I. A. 161 ; 
Rampershad Tewany v. Sheo Churn 
Doss (1866), 10 M. L A. 490, at pp. 
505, 506 ; Birijun Koer v. Luchmi 



Narain Mahata (1884), 10 Calc. 392, 
at p. 398; Tribtovandas v. Smith 
(1896), 21 Bom. 349 ; S. C. in Court 
below (1895), 20 Bom. 316; Naga* 
Unyam Pillai v. fiamachandra Tevar 
(1901), 24 Mad: 429 ; Himmat Baha- 
dur v. Bhawani Kunwar (1908), 30 
All. 352. Sec Gobardhan Saliu v. 
BulMian Mahton (1916), 1 Pat. L. J, 
195. As to Government grants, see 
post, pp. 251, 252. 

4 Indar Sahai (Munshi) v. Shiam 
Bahadur (Kunwar) (1912), 17 C. W. N. 
509; 15 Bom L.R. 2118 

5 Handas v. Velji (1913), 15 Bom. 
L. R. 584. 

6 Lai Bahadur v. Kanhaia Lai 
(1907), 34 L A. 65; 29 All. 244; 1Z 
C. W. N. 417 ; 9 Bom. L. R. 597 ; 
ChabiUas Lallubhai v. Ramdas Cba- 
UUas (1909), 11 Bom. L. R. 606; 
Gobardhan Sahu v. BuMchan Mahton 
(1916), IPat. L.J. 195. 

^ Tajmtdali (Mouhi Syed) v. Jaga 
Mohan Das (1916), 1 Pat. L. J. 529 ; 
Haridas Lalji v. Narotam (1911), 14 
Bom. L. R. 237, ante, p. 240. 

s See Muddun Gopal Lai (Lala) v. 
Khikhinda Koer (Mussumat) (1890), 18 
LA. 9, at p. 21; 1 8 Calc. 341, at p 348; 
Timannachanja v. Balacliarya (1902), 
4 Bom. L, R. 257. 



246 



COPARCENARY PROPERTY. 



[CHAP. 



VI. 



Bight by 
prescription. 



Accretions ^ 
and acquisi 
tions. 



Form of 
transfer. 



Slight or 
indirect aid. 



The right to claim property as separate may be barred by the operation 
of the law of Limitation. 1 

(g) Accretions to coparcenary property. Property acquired 
out of the income or with the aid 2 or on the credit 3 of copar- 
cenary property, whether movable or immovable, 4 the income 
of such property, 5 the proceeds of sale of such property, and 
property purchased out of such proceeds, 6 or from movable 
property belonging to the family, 7 are coparcenary property. 

The form of the transfer 8 or the fact that the property was purchased 
or settled in the name of a particular member of the family 9 is immaterial. 10 

Where the acquirer has received merely trifling aid from the 
family property n or where the family property was only indi- 
rectly instrumental in bringing about the acquisition, 12 the 



1 See Vasudeva Padhi Khadanga 
Garu v. Maguni Devan Bafoht Haha- 
patrula Gam (1901), 28 I. A. 81 ; 24 
Mad. 387; 5 C. W. N. 545; 3 Bom. 
L. R. 303. 

2 Lai Bahadur v. Kanhaia Lai 
(1907), 34 I. A 65; 29 All. 244; 11 
C. W. N. 417; 9 Bom. L. B. 597; 
Umrithnath Ghowdhry v. Goureenath 
Chowdhry (1870), 13 M. I. A. 542 ; 15 
W. B. P. C. 10 ; Isree Pershad Singh 
v. Nasib Koo&r (1884), 10 Calc. 1017 ; 
Sublayya v. Surayya (1887), 10 Mad. 
251 (a case of waste land brought 
under cultivation) ; Ajodhya Purshad 
v. Mahadeo Purshad (1909), 14 C. W. 
N. 221 ; Kristnappa Chetty v. Rama- 
sawmy Iyer (1875), 8 Mad. H. C. 25 ; 



Panday (1868), 4 Mad. H. C. 5; 
Booniadi Loll (Bulcsliee) v. Dewlcee 
Nundun Loll (Bulcshee) (1873), 19 
W. B. C. B. 223; Kalee, Sunkar 
Bhadooree v, Eshan Chunder Bhadooree 
(1872), 17 W. B. C. R. 528; Bona 
Kooree (Mussamut) v. Booke Singh 
(Baloo) (1867), 8 W. B. 0. B. 182 ; 
SJiudanund Mohapattur v. Bonomake 
Doss Mohapattur (1866), 6 W. B. 0. 
B. 256 ; Purtab Bahaudur Sing v, 
TUukdharee Sing (1807), 1 Ben. Sel. 
B. 179 (new edition, 236). 

*8faQ$&rwd Sing v. Kullunder 
Sing (1^3); I Ben. Sel. B, 76 (new 
ed.101). i 

* Shti Dog/^ v . fiobrga Pershad 



(1872), 4 N.W. P. 63, at p. 71. 

6 Eamanna v. VenJcata (1888), 11 
Mad. 246. 

6 Knshnasami Ayyangar v. Raja- 
gopola Ayyangar (1894), 18 Mad. 73, 
at p. 83. See Shamnarain Singh v. 
Rughooburdyal (1877), 3 Calc. 508; 
1 C. L. B. 343. 

7 See Shamnarain Singh v. Rug1ioo 
lurdyal (1877), 3 Calc. 508, at p. 510 ; 
1 C. L. B. 343, at p. 345. 

8 See In the goods of PoTcurmull 
Augurwallah (1896), 23 Calc. 980 ; 1 
C. W. N. 31. 

9 Umrithnath Chowdhry v. Qourea- 
nath Chowdhry (1870), 13 M. I. A. 
542, at p. 547 ; 6 B. L. B, 232, at p. 
241 ; 15 W. B. P. C. 10, at p. 11 ; 
Bodh Sing Doodhooria v. Gunesh 
Chunder Sen (1873), 12 B. L. B. 317 ; 
19 W. B. C. B. 356. 

10 See post, pp. 254, 255. 

11 See Rampershad Tewarry v. Sheo 
Ch'urn Doss (1866), 10 M. I. A. 490, 
at p. 505; Ahmedbhoy HuliVbhoy v. 
Oassumbhoy Ahmedbhoy (1889), 13 
Bom. 534, at p 545. 

12 Jugmohandas Mangaldas v. Sir 
MangaUas Nathubhoy (1886), 10 
Bom. 528, at pp. 558, 559 ; Jadumani 
Dasi (Srimati) v. Qangadhar Seal, 
Boul. 600; "Vyavastha Barpana," 
2nd ed., p. 525 ; Gooroo Churn v. <7o- 
luckmoney (1843), Fulton, 165, at 
p. 181 ; Meenatchee v. Chedumbm, 
Mad, Dec. of 1853, p. 61. 



OHAP. VI.] COPARCENARY PROPERTY, 247 

acquirer is entitled to treat the acquisition as separate (see 
post, pp. 248, 249). 

" It seems agreed that maintenance in the family, during the period 
of separate acquisition, though it contribute to the end, is not alone 
sufficient to affect it with a joint character, the expenditure for the purpose 
being incidental." x 

It has been held that property acquired by a coparcener while drawing 
an income from coparcenary property is joint. 2 

As to property purchased from money acquired by the exercise of a 
profession, see post, p. 250, 

Where with comparatively small aid from the coparcenary increased 
property the separate acquisition of a distinct property is made share * 
by an individual member by his own labour or capital, the 
acquirer, according to the Bengal authorities, is entitled 
to a double share on partition, 3 no such share being given 
in case of the common stock being only improved or 
augmented. 4 

It has been suggested 5 that the extra share allotted to the 
acquirer may be treated by him as self-acquired. 

Whether this limitation will be accepted by the Judicial Committee 
or will be adopted in the other Provinces may be open to question. 

Mr. Mayne 6 says that the text of Vasishta, 7 on which it is founded, 
"probably applied originally to self -acquisition properly so called, and 
that it cut down the rights of a self-acquirer, instead of enlarging the 
rights of one who has made use of common property. The Smriti Chan drika 

1 Strange's "Hindu Law," i. 214 Sing (1807), 1 Ben. Sel. R. 179 (now 

2 Rameshaiya Panday v. Bhagavat ed. 236) ; Knpa Sindliu Patjoshi v. 
Panday (1868), 4 Mad. H. C. 5. Seo Kanliaya Acharya (1833), 5 Ben. Sel. 
post, p. 250. R. 335 (new ed, 393) ; " Mitakshara," 

3 Sheo Dyal Tewaree v. Judoomth chap, i s. 4, para. 29 ; " Dayabhaga," 
Tcwaree (18G8), 9 W. R. 0. R. 61, at chap. ii. para. 41 ; chap. vi. s. 1, 
p. 64 ; Sree Narain Berak v. Gooro paras. 14, 28. Seo ante, p. 246. 
Pershad Berah (1866), 6 W. R. C. R, * " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 4, 
219 ; Lai Ohand Shaw v. Swarnamoye paras. 30, 31. 

I><w (1909), 13 C. W. N. 1133; 6 Bhattacharya's "Hindu Law," 

Soorjeemoney Do&see (Sreemutty) v. 2nd ed., p. 228. It cannot be said to 

Denobundoo Mullick (judgment of have been acquired without detri- 

Supreme Court, 1855), 6 M. I. A. 526, ment to the paternal estate : ante, 

at p. 539 ; Golab CJiand v. Ooluk p. 243. 

Monee Dossee (1843), Fulton, 165; c "Hindu Law," 8th ed., pp. 307, 

Jadumani v. Oangadhar Seal, Boul. 368. 

600 ; " Vyavastha Darpana " (2nd 7 " And if one of the brothers has 

ed.), 521 ; Gudadhur Serma v. Ajod* gained something by his own effort, 

hearam Chowdry (1794), 1 Bon. Sel. he shall receive a double share," 

R. 8 (new ed. 7) ; Koshul ChuJsurwutty " Vasishta," xvii. 51 ; " Mitakshara," 

v. Eadhanath Ohukurwutty (1811), 1 chap. i. s. 4, para. 29; "Daya- 

Ben. Sel. R. 336 (new ed. 448) ; bhaga," chap. vi. s, 1, paras. 27-29. 
Purtab Bahaudw Sing v. Mukharee 



248 



SEPARATE PROPERTY. 



[CHAP, vs. 



Coparcenary 
as regards 
some copar- 
ceneis only. 



jEndowed 
property. 



Separate 
property. 



and Madhaviya both restrict the text to the gains of learning, when 
considered to be partible in consequence of the education from which they 
sprung having been imparted at the expense of the family. 1 The general 
principles laid down by Vijnanesvara seem to exclude the idea that any 
special and exclusive benefit can be obtained to any co-heir by a use of 
the family property. 2 Mr. W. Macnaghten states that under Benares 
law no such benefit can be obtained, whatever may have been the personal 
exertions of any individuals, but that the rule did not exist in Bengal." 3 

As the "Mitakshara" (chap. i. s. 5, para. 29) also accepts Vasishta's 
text the same rule as that applied in Bengal would apparently apply to 
all cases governed by the *' Mitakshara." 

Under the Bengal school of law, where the father and son are living 
together as a joint family, the father takes a double share in acquisitions 
made by a son ; if they have been made by the use of joint funds the 
father and the acquirer take two shares each, and the rest of the brothers 
one share each ; but if made without the use of joint funds the acqui- 
sitions are divided half and half between the father and the son. A father 
claiming a share of property acquired by his son is not bound to allow the 
son any share of the ancestral property in his hands. 4 

This rule has no application when the son has separated from his father. 5 

Property may be coparcenary as regards some members of 
a joint family, while other members of the family, although 
coparceners in the family property, have no share therein. 
Thus, if a coparcener dies leaving separate property, such 
property becomes the coparcenary property of his descendants, 
but his collateral coparceners have no interest therein. 7 

The coparcenary may also be trustees of property devoted to 
religious or pious uses. 8 This class of property is incapable of 
partition. 9 

SEPARATE PROPERTY. 

It is competent to a member of a joint family to acquire 
property for himself independently of his coparceners. Such 



1 "Smriti Chandrika," chap. vii. 
para. 9, and see futwah in 2 William 
Macnaghten, 167. 

3 "Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 4, 
paras. 1-6. 

3 1 Win Macnaghten, 52 ; 2 Wm. 
Macn. 7 n,. 158, 160 n., 162 n. 

* Wooma. Soonduree Dossee v. 
Dwarka NatJi Roy (1868), 11 W. B. 
C. B. 72; Dharma Das Kundii v. 
Amutyadhan Kundu (1906), 33 Gale. 
1119, at p. 1126; 10 C. W. W. 765. 
In the latter "case reliance was placed 
on the case of Sreenarain Berah v. 
Oooro Pershad Berah (1866), 6 W. B. 
0. B. 219, but the question of the 



father's right did not arise in that 
case. Macnaghten's "Hindu Law," 
vol. u. pp. 163, 164 ; Sircar's " Vya- 
vastha Darpana," 2nd cd , pp. 447- 
456 ; " Dayabhaga," chap. 11. para. 71. 

5 SGG Anund Mokun Paul Chowdhiy 
v. Shamasoondery (Sreemutty), W. B. 
1864, C. R. 352. 

6 Sec Shamnarain v. Court of Wards 
(1873), 20 W. B. B. 197. 

7 See ante, p. 242, 

8 See Ramchandra Panda v. Ram 
Krishna MaJiapatra (1906), 33 Calc, 
507. 

9 See post, pp. 342, 343. 



CHAP, VI.] 



SEPARATE PBOPBBT*. 



249 



separate acquisitions can be dealt with at the p\easure of the 
acquirer.! In default of a will they pass to tho heir of the 
acquirer, 2 who will, in cases under the Mitakshara law, if he bo 
a son, take thorn as coparcenary property. 3 

This applies to Nambudri Brahmins.* 

As to separate property of a member of a tarwad, see Krishnan Nair v. 
Damodaran Nair (1912), 38 Mad. 48, distingxiislmig Govimhm Nair v. 
Sankaran Nait (1909), 32 Mad. 351, and overruling Ammangav. Upparforai 
Pacr(1911),34Mad. 387. 

As to the power of a father to divide his self -acquired property unequally 
amongst his sons, see post, p. 338. 

Property acquired in the following ways is the absolute 
property of the acquirer. Other members of the family have 
no interest therein. 5 

(a) Property acquired by an individual member of the joint Separate 
family by his own exertions, or from his separate capital, or 
on his own credit, 7 without any help from, or detriment to, the 



acquisitions. 



1 Jugmohandas Mangaldas v. Sir 
Mangaldas Nathuohoy (1886), 10 Bom. 
528, at pp. 578, 580 ; Muddun Qopal 
Tlwkoor v. Ram Buksh Pandey (1863), 
6 W. R. C. E. 71 ; Sital v. Madho 
(1877), 1 All. 394 ; Narottam Jagjivan 
v. Narsandas Harikisandas (1866), 3 
Bom. H. C. A. C. J 6; Purshotam 
Shama Shenvi v. Vasudev Krishna 
Shenvi (1871), 8 Bom. H. C. O. C. 
196 ; Bishen PerJcash Narain Singh 
(Raja) v. Bawa Hisser (1873), 12 B. 
L. R. 430 ; 20 W. R. C. R. 137 ; S. C. 
in Court below, 10 W. R. C. R. 287 ; 
Nana Narain Rao v. Huree Punth Bhao 
(1862), 9 M. I A. 96 ; Marsh. 436 ; 
Nagalingam Pittai v. Ramachandra 
Tevar (1901), 24 Mad. 429 ; Ramesh- 
war Prosad v. Lachmi Prosad Singh 
(1903), 7 0. W. N. 688; Gunnaiyan 
. v. Kamakchi Ayyar (1902), 26 Mad 
339, at p. 353 ; Subbayya v. Surayya 
(1887), 10 Mad. 251 ; Gangdbai v. 
Vamanaji (1864), 2 Bom. H, C. (2nd 
cd.) 301. See Hanmantapa v. Jtou- 
bai (1900), 24 Bom. 547; 2 Bom. 
L. R. 478. 

2 Katama Natchiar v. The Rajah of 
Shivagunga (1863), 9 M. I. A. 543, at 
p. 613 ; 9 W. R. P. C. 31, at p. 39 ; 
Balwant Singh (Rao) v, Kishori (Rani) 
(1898), 25 I. A. 54 j 20 All. 267 j 2 



0. W. N. 273. 

3 Chatturbhooj Meghji v. Dharamsi 
Naranji (1884), 9 Bom. 438, at p. 
450 ; Ram Narain S^'ngh (Rajah) v. 
Pertum Singh (1873), 11 B. L. R. 
397, at p. 404; 20 W. R. C. R. 189, 
at p, 191. Ante, pp. 241, 242. 

4 Vishnu Nanibudti v. Akfaxmma 
(1910), 34 Mad. 496 

5 BeoYamunabaiv Mam<bai(l$Q), 
23 Bom. 60S, at p. 611 ; 1 Bom. 
L. R. 95. As to the Bengal school, 
see ante, p. 224. 

6 Tottempudi Venkataratnam v. 
Tottempudi Seshamma (1903), 27 
Mad. 228 ; Soniasundara Mudaliar v. 
Ganga Bissen JSom (1904), 28 Mad. 
386 (income derived from Government 
service). This would not include 
exertions as manager, Shea Dyal 
Tewaree v. Judoonath Fewaree (18C8), 
9 W. R. C. R. 61, at p. 64. As to 
earnings by a prostitute, see Chatidm* 
reka v. Secretary of State (1890), U 
Mad. 163 ; Boologam v. Swoniam 
(1881), 4 Mad. 330. 

7 Nursingh Dass (Rai) v. Narain 
Doss (Rai) (1871), 3 N. W. P H C. 
217, at p. 235. As to a policy of 
insurance, see Rajamma v. Itamdkri- 
(1905), 29 Mad. 121. 



250 



SEPAKATE PROPERTY, 



[CHAP, vi. 



coparcenary property, 1 although he may have been maintained 
out of the proceeds of the family property, 2 

Property may be acquired by members of a joint family acting as partners 
\rithout aid from the family property. 3 

(6) Property acquired as "gains of science/' 4 i.e. by the 
practice of a (learned) profession or occupation, where the 
property of the family has not been used for acquiring such 
property, or in the special education, which was necessary for 
the purpose of practising such profession. 5 

A mere general education or maintenance, even during the time of 
the acquisition, 6 at the expense of the family, would not, apparently, 
make the profits of the profession coparcenary property, 7 but a special 
education for the particular profession would stand upon a different 
footing. 

The "gains of science" enumerated in the "Dayabhaya" (chap. vi ? 
s. 2, paras. 2-12, are as follows : 

1. Prize for the solution of a difficulty. 

2. Fee for instructing a pupil. 



1 Tottcmpudi Venlatarattutm v. 
Tottcmpudi Se&lamma (1903), 27 
Mad. 228 ; Sodbims Lai v. Hurbuns 
Lai (1805), 1 Ben. Sel. R. 91 (new 
ed. 121) ; Purtab Bahaudur Sing v. 
Til'iiJcdharee Sing (1807), 1 Ben. Sol 
B. 179 (new ed. 236); Koul Nath 
8ingh v. Jagrup Singh (1830), 5 Ben. 
Sel. R. 12 (new ed. 14). 

2 See Chdbildas Lallubhai v. Raindas 
C'hdbildas (1909), 11 Bom. L, R. 606. 

3 SQQJoharmalLadhooramv.Chetram 
Harising (1914), 39 Bom. 715; 17 
Bom. L. R. 293. See ante, p. 239. 

* "Manu," chap. ix. para. 206; 
"Narada Smriti," chap. ix. para. 6. 
The word which was translated by 
Colebrookc as "gains of science" is 
said to ]be literally " learning money," 
and to have meant money acquired 
by the teaching of the Vedas, K. 
K. Bhattacharya's "Joint Hindu 
Family," pp. 661-667. 

6 See cases in note 6 below. 

* Stooge's " Hindu Law," i. 214, 
215; "Dayabhaga," chap. vi. s. 1, 
paras, 44r-50 See Duruasula Gangad- 
harudu v. Durvasufa Narasammah 
( 1872), 7 Mad, H. C. 47, at p. 49 ; Cha- 
lakonda Alasani v. Qhcdakonda JRatna- 
chalam (1864), 2 Mad, H. C. 56, at 



p. 76 ; Chellaperoomall v. Vermperoo- 
mall, 4 Mad. Jur. 54, 240, referred to 
in Mayne's " Hindu Law," 8th ed., p. 
361. 

7 Durga Dat Joshi v. Ganesh Dat 
Joshi (1910), 32 All. 305 (earnings as 
astrologer) ; Laksman Mayaram v. 
Jamnabai (1882), 6 Bom. 225 (earn- 
ings in Government employment) ; 
Krishnaji Mahadev Mahajan v. Moro 
Mahadev Mahajan (1890), 15 Bom. 
32 (earning as KarJcun [agent in 
financial or revenue collections]) ; 
Dhunookdharee Lall v. Gunput Loll 
(1868), 11 B. L. R. 201 note; 10 
W. R. C. R. 122; Valloo CMty 
(Pauliem) v. Sooryah OJietty (Pauliem) 
(1877), 4 I. A. 109, at pp. 117, 118 ; 
1 Mad. 252, at pp. 261, 262 ; Lachmin 
Kuar v. Debi Prasad (1897), 20 AIL 
435 (a case of money earned as a 
commissariat officer) ; Boologam v. 
Swornam (1881), 4 Mad. 330 (whore 
it was attempted to treat the earnings 
of a dancing-girl as joint property) ; 
Manchha (Bai) v. Narotam Las, 
(1868), 6 Bom. H. C. A. C. 1 (earnings 
as vakil) ; see Durvamda Gangadharadu 
v. Durvasula Narasammah (1872), 7 
Mad. H. C. 47 ; Avayambal v. Kama- 
lambal, 19 M. L. J. 65, 



CHA1>. VI.] 



SEPARATE PROPERTY* 



251 



3. Fee for officiating at religious rites. 

4. Solving a question relating to science. 

5. Deciding a litigated question. 

6. Reward for the display of science* 

7. Prize gained in a disputation, 

8. Prize for reading. 

9. Gain of a skilled artist. 

10. Stake won by skill in play. 

(c) Gifts on marriage l or on other occasions, 2 and bequests, Gifts and 

bequests. 

The payment of the marriage expenses out of coparcenary property 
does not render the marriage gifts joint property. 3 

As to babuana grants of ancestral property, see post, p. 268. 

As to gifts and bequests to a son in cases governed by the Mitakshara 
school of law, see ante, p. 244. 

As to gifts and bequests to the joint family, see ante, p. 240, 

(d) Grants of property made by Government, 4 whether to Grants by 

a stranger or to a kinsman of a former owner of the land, unless (nerameix 
it appears from the grant that it was to enure for the benefit 
of the family, 5 or where the grantee has constituted himself a 



1 Adhar Chandra Chatterjee v. 
Nobin Chandra Chatterjee (1907), 12 
C. W. N. 103 ; Beharee LaU Roy v. 
Lall Chunder Roy (1876), 25 W. B. 
C. B. 307. 

8 See "Mitakshara," chap. i. s 4, 
para. 2. " Maim " (chap. ix. para. 
206) includes gifts presented as a 
mark of respect to a guest ; " Narada" 
(chap. xiu. paras. 6, 7) includes gifts 
by father and mother. KrmJtnaswfwti 
Naidn v. Seethalakshmi Ammal (1915), 
39 Mad. 1029 (gift for maintenance). 

3 Sheo Gobind v. Sham Narain, 
Singh (1875), 7 N. W. P. 75. 

4 Katama Natchiar v. Rajah of 
Shivagunga (1863), 9 M. I A. 543, 
at p. 610 ; 2 W. B. P. C. 31, at p. 
38; Beer Pertab Sahee (Baboo) v. 
Rajender Pertab Sahee (Maharajah) 
(1867), 12 M. I A. 1, afe p. 34 ; 9 
W. B. P. C. 15, at p. 21. See Raja 
Jee Bahadur Garu (Raja) v. Partha- 
saradhi Appa Row (1902), 30 I. A. 
14 ; 26 Mad. 202 ; 8 G. W. N. 105. 
See Sookraj Koowar (Mussumat Thu 
krain) v. Government (1871), 14 M I. 
A. 112 ; HurpursJtad v. Sheo Dyal 
(1876), 3 I. A. 259 ; 26 W. B. C. B. 
$5; Brij Indar Bahadur Singh v. 



JanU Koer (Ranee) (1877), 5 I A. 
1 ; Shere Bahadur Singh (Thakutr) v. 
Dariao Kuar (Thakurain) (1877), 3 
Calc. 645. See Jaganatha v. Rama- 
bhadra (1888), H Mad. 380 ; Ram 
Nundun Singh v. Janki Koer (Ma- 
Jiarani) (1902), 29 I. A. 178, at 
p. 193; 29 Calc. 828, at p. 851; 
7 G. W. N. 57, at p. 72 ; 4 Bom. L, R. 
604. As to a sale by Government of 
property which had been claimed as an 
escheat, see Italian v. Purushothama 
(1889), 12 Mad. 287. As to the 
enfranchisement of an inam, see Gun- 
iwiyan v. Kamakchi Ayyar (1902), 
26 Mad. 339, and cases there cited ; 
Subbaraya Mudah v. Kamu Chetti 
(1899), 23 Mad. 47. 

5 Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dyal (1876), 
3 I A. 259; 26 W. B. 0. B. 55; 
Govind Rao (Sn MaTtant) v. Sita 
Ram Kesho (1898), 25 I. A. 195 ; 21 
All. 53 ; 2 0. W. N. 681. As where 
the grant merely operated as an 
ascertainment of the claim for 
revenue, and a release of the re- 
versionary right of the Crown, 2V T a- 
rayana v. Chengalamma (1886), 10 
Mad. 1. See Radhabai v Nanarav 
(1879), 3 Bom. 151. 



252 SEPAUATH PROPERTY. [CHAP. VI, 

trustee for the family, l or where there has been a family arrange- 
ment, 2 or apparently where a family custom has treated them 
as joint. 3 

The quality of the estate in regard to its descendibility would not, 
primd facie, be altered by the regrant. 4 

It was held in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh (1916), 38 All. 
590, that where an impartible estate is lost to a certain family and on the 
representation of a member of that family the Government makes a grant 
in his favour without any special term or condition, the property is joint 
family property in the hands of the member of the family to whom the grant 
is made. 

. W Coparcenary property which had been lost to the family, 5 
otherwise than by voluntary and valid alienation, 6 but recovered 
by an individual member without the aid of the family property 7 
from a stranger holding adversely to the family. 8 

There must have been an express or implied abandonment 
of their rights by the coparceners, and the coparceners must 
have been in a position to sue. 9 

Where the property recovered under these conditions con- 
sists of land, 10 the recoverer, except perhaps he be the father, 

1 See Hardeo Bux (Thakoor) v. (1909), 34 Bom. 106; 11 Bom. L. B. 
Jawahir Singh (Thakoor} (1877), 4 1122. 

I. A. 178 ; 3 Calc. 522 ; 6 I. A 161 ; " Yajnavalkya," bk. ii. v. 119 ; 

Sookraj Koowar (Mussumai Thukrain) " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 5, para. 11 ; 

v. government (1871), 14 M. I. A. Manu," chap. be. para. 209 ; Bolakee 

112; Shere Bahadur Singh (Thakur) Sahoo v. Court of Wards (1870), 14 

v. Dariao Kuar (Thakurain) (1877), W. B. C. B. 34; Naraganti Acham- 

3 Calc. 645; Ramanund Koer (Tha~ magaru v. Venkatachalapati Nayani- 

kurain) v. Raghunath Koer (Thaku* mm (1881), 4 Mad. 250, at p. 259. 

rain) (1881), I. A. 41 ; 8 Calc. Naraganti Achammtgaru v. Fen- 

769 katachalapati Nayanivaru (1881), 4 

2 See Kedar Nath (Maharaj) v. Mad. 250, at p. 259. 

Ratan Singh (ThaJcur) (1910), 37 L A. find. ; Visalatchi Amnwl v. Anna- 

161 ; 32 AH. 415; 14 C. W. N. 985; samy Sastry (1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 

12 Bom. L. B. 656. 150 ; Jugmokandas Mangaldas v. Sir 

3 See Madharav Manohar v. At- Mangaldas Nathubttoy (1886), 10 Bom. 
maram Keshav (1890), 15 Bom. 519. 528, at p. 551 ; Shamnarain Singh v. 

* See Venkata Narasimha Appa Rughooburdyal (1877), 3 Calc. 508, 

How (Sri Rajah) v. Rangayya Appa at p. 511 ; 1 C. L. B. 343, at pp. 

Row (Sri Rajah) (1905), 29 Mad. 437. 345, 346. See also Bissessur Chucker- 

6 This does not apply to a case lutty v. Seetul Chunder Chuckerbutty 

where the property was held by a (1808), 9 W. B. C. B. 69; S. C. 

person claiming to be a member of the (1867), 8 W. B. C. B. 13. 

family, Bteseswr Chuckerlutty v. Seetul " K. K. Bhattacharya (" Law Be^ 

Chunder Qhwskerlutty (1868), 9 W. B. lating to the Joint Hindu Family," 

C. B. 60; g. C. 8 W. B. C. B. 13. p. 661) considers that this distinction 

8 Baj&M v, Trivr&ak Vishvamth only applies to arable land. 



CHAP. VI,] SEPARATE PROPERTY, 258 

is not entitled to the property absolutely, but he is entitled on 
partition to take one-fourth share as a reward for the recovery, 
and he has to share the remainder with his brethren. 1 

Where the recoverer is the father, the Mitakshara would 
apparently give him the whole of the property, 2 but the autho- 
rities of the Bengal school make no distinction between a 
recovery by the father or one by another coparcener. 3 

The redemption of property is not a recovery within the meaning of 
this rule. 4 

The use of family money for the purpose of recovering such property 
does not necessarily make it joint. 5 

(/) In a case governed by the Mitakshara school of law, obstructed 
property inherited by obstructed inheritance (Sapratibandhajf enta s e - 
i.e. from some person other than a natural or adopted father, 
father's father, or father's father's father. 7 

Property inherited by a single son from his mother would 
apparently not be coparcenary property, but the question is by 
no means clear. 

As to property inherited by several sons, see anle> pp. 238-241. 
As pointed out by Mr. J, C. Ghose, 8 according to the Smritis it is 
only in property derived from a paternal grandfather that the sons have 

i " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 4, para. (1906), 28 AH. 347. 

3 ; Colebrooke's " Digest," vol. iii. 6 Ante, p. 241, note 10. 

p. 365 ; " Daya-Krama Sangraha," 7 Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh 

chap. iv. s. 2, para. 9. See Nara- (1908), 25 I A. 206 ; 35 Calc. 1039 ; 

ganti Achammagarw v. Venlcatachala- 12 G. W. N. 1049 ; 10 Bom. L. K. 

pati Nayanivaru (1881), 4 Mad. 250, 790 ; Gurumurthi Reddi v. Gurammal 

at p. 259. Where the property (1908), 32 Mad. 88 ; Timannacharya 

is impartible, the recoverer would v. Rdacharya (1903), 4 Bom. L. E. 

apparently be entitled to a reward. 457; Nund Coomar Lott (Baboo} v. 

Ibid., pp. 259, 260. Razeeoddeen Hossein (1872), 10 B. 

8 Chap. i. s. 5, para. 11. L. E. 183; 18 W. E. C. E. 477; 

8 " Dayahhaga," chap. vi. s, 2, NaUatambi Chetti (Rayadur) v. Mu- 

paras. 36-39; ''Daya-Krama San- bunda Chdti (Sayadur) (1868), 3 

graha," chap. iv. s. 2, paras. 7, 8 ; Mad. H. C. 455 ; Saminadka Pittai v. 

William Macnaghten, vol. i. 52 ; vol. Thangathanni (1895), 19 Mad. 70 ; 

ii. 157. In SolaJcee Sahoo v. Lochun Singh v. Nemdkaree Singh 

Court of Wards (1870), 14 W. E. C. (1873), 20 W. E. C. E. 170 ; Pitam 

E. 34, the right of the father to the Singh v. Ujagar Singh (1878), 1 All. 

whole was maintained, but the ques- 651 ; Jawahir Singh v. Guyan Singh 

tion as to his being entitled only to (1868), 3 Agra H. C. 78. See Ghose's 

an extra share does not seem to have " Hindu Law," 2nd ed., pp. 375, 376, 

been raised. 8 " Hindu Law," 2nd ed., p. 375, 

* Visalatchi Ammal v. Annasamy see " Mitakshara," chap. i. s. 4 ; and 

Sasfry (1870), 5 Mad. H. C. 150. Karuppai Nachiar v. Sankanarayam 

s Bachcho Kuwar v. &Iiaram Das Chatty (1903), 27 Mad. 300, at p. 307. 



254 



BUBDEN OP PBOOF, 



[CHAP. vi. 



Accretions 
and proceeds. 



Burden of 
proof that 
property 
separate. 



Property in 
name of 
coparcener. 



equal rights with the father, but according to Mr. G'olebrooke, the Mitak- 
shara includes as coparcenary property everything obtained to the 
detriment of the mother's estate. 1 

In Karuppai Nachiar v, Sanlcanarayan Chetty (1903), 27 Mad. 300, 
the Madras High Court, and in Parson (Bai) v. Somli (Bai) (1912), 36 Bom. 
424; 14 Bom. L, R. 400, the Bombay High Court, held that sons inheriting 
from a mother took as tenants in common, but this is, it is submitted, not 
in accordance with the views of the Judicial Committee in Venlayamma 
Garu (Raja CIietiMni) v. Venkataramanayamma (Raja Chelikani), 29 I. A. 
156 ; 25 Mad. 678 ; 7 0. W. N. 1 ; 4 Bom. L. B. 657, ante, pp. 238, 239. 

As to property inherited from a maternal grandfather, see ante, 
pp. 241, 242. 

Under the Bengal school, inherited property, from whomso- 
ever it be inherited, is the separate property of a male heir. 

(g) Accretions to separate property of any kind and savings 
therefrom, and property purchased with the income thereof, or 
from the proceeds thereof. 2 

A member of a joint family claiming property as separate 
must show of what the separate property consists, 3 and that it 
was his separate acquisition. 4 

As to the presumption with regard to the family being joint, 
see ante, pp. 220-223. 

Property 5 purchased, either at a private sale or at a sale 
in execution of a decree of a Civil Court, 6 or held by or in the 
name of, or settled with 7 a coparcener in a family which is 
joint in estate, 8 is, if held in a manner not inconsistent with the 
property being joint, presumed, apart from special circum- 
stances, to have belonged to the coparcenary at the time of its 
acquisition. 9 



1 See ante, ^ 243. 

2 See Booniadi Lall (Bukshee) v. 
Dewlcee Nundun Lall (BuJcshee) 
(1873), 19 W. B. C. B. 223. 

8 Gane Bhwe Parab v. Kane Bhive 
(1867), 4 Bom. H. C. A. C. J. 169, 

4 Bipro Prosad Mytee v. Kenae 
Doyee (1865), 3 W. B. C. B. 165 ; S. C. 
on remand, 5 W. B. C. B. 82. 

5 This includes money due on a 
bond, KdUe Sunkur Bhadooree v. 
Eshan Ohunder Bhadooree (1872), 17 
W. B. 0. B. 528. 

6 Hari Singh v. Sher Sing (1909), 
31 All 282. 

7 Swo SSoonduree Debia v. Doorgp 
Doss Blwtia&haffJM (1871), 16 W. B. 
C. B- 265, 



8 They may have separated in food 
or worship, ante, p. 221. 

9 DJiurm Das Pandey v SJiama- 
soondn Dibiah (1843), 3 M. I. A. 229, 
at p. 240 ; 6 W B. P. C. 43, at p. 44 ; 
Prankishen Paul Chowdhry v. Mo- 
thooramohun Paul Chowdhry (1865), 
10 M. I. A. 403 ; 5 W. B. P. 0. 11 ; 
Bissessur Lall Sahoo v. Luchmesswr 
SiTigh (Maharajah) (1879), 6 L A. 
233, at p. 236 j 5 0. L. B. 477, at p. 
479 ; Cheetha (Muswmat) v. Mihe&n 
Lai (Baboo) (1867), 11 M. J. A. 369 ; 
LwKiman Mow Sadasow v. Millar 
Row Bajee (1831), 2 Knapp. 60; 5 
W. B. P, C. 67 j Parbati Dasi v. 
Baifaintba Nath JDe (Haja) (1913), 
J 0. W, N, 428 ; 16 3pm. L, B. 101s 



CHAP. VI.] 



BUBDEN OF PROOF. 



253 



There is no similar presumption in the ease of property purchased by Dependent 
or in the name of dependent members of the family, who have no vested membera * 
interest in the joint family, as, for instance, a son-in-law living in the 
house, 1 a wife, 2 under the Bengal school of law a son when the father is 
alive, 3 or a female member of the family ; 4 but whore the property had 
been purchased by the managing members in such name the presumption 
might arise. 5 

" In the case of an ordinary Hindu family who are living 
together, or have their entire property in common, the presump- 
tion is that all that any one member of the family is found in 
possession of belongs to the common stock. That is the ordinary 
presumption, and the onus of establishing the contrary is thrown 
on the member of the family who disputes it." 6 

" The fact of the Hindu family is enough to put the purchaser upon 



Kanhia Lai v. Debi Das (1899), 22 
All. 141 ; Yanumula Venkayama 
(Stree Rajah) v. Yanumula, Boochia, 
Vankondora (Strec Rajah) (1870), 
13 M. I. A. 333; 13 W. R. P. C. 
4 ; Bodh Sing Doodhooria v. Gunesli 
Chunder Sen (1873), 12 B. L. R. 
317, at p, 327; 19 W. R. C. R. 
356, at p. 357 ; Prannath Ohowdhry v. 
Kashinath Roy Chowdhry, W. R. 1864, 
C. R.169 ; Ramphul Singh v. Degnarain 
Singh (1881), 8 Gale. 517 ; 10 C. L. 
R. 489 ; Jugodumba Debia v. Rohince 
Dcibia (1875), 23 W. R. C R, 422 ; 
Heera Lall Roy v.Bidyadhur Roy ( 1 874) , 
21 W R. C. R. 343 ; Cassumhhoy Ah- 
medbhoy v.AhmedbhoyHubibhoy (188*7), 
12 Bom. 280, at p. 309 ; Annundo 
Mohun Roy v. Lamb (1862), Marsh, 
169; 1 Hay, 374; Hait Singh v. 
Dabee Singh (1870), 2 N. W. P. 308 ; 
Nursingh Dass (Rat) v, Narain Dass 
(Kai) (1871), 3 N. W. P. 217; S. C 
on appeal (1876), 26 W. R. C. R. 17 ; 
Gopeehnst Gfo&ain v. GwngapersoMd 
Gosam (1854), 6 M. I. A. 53 ; Subbayya 
v. Surayya (1887), 10 Mad, 251; 
Subbayya v. CheUamma (1886), 9 Mad. 
477 (where waste lands were brought 
under cultivation) ; Gopee LaU v. 
Bhugwan Doss (Mohunt) (1869), 12 
W. R. 0. R. 7 ; Narayan Deshpande v. 
Anaji Deshpande (1880), 5 Bom. 130 ; 
Nilmoney BJwoya v. Gunga Narain 
Shahur Roy (1864), 1 W. R. C. R. 
334. See JBalaram Bhaslcarji v. 
Bhaskarji (1898), 22 



v. Gunga Jttonee Dcbee (1S71), 16 
W. R. C. R. 291 ; Dccla Singh v. 
Toofanee Singh (1864), 1 W R. C. R. 
306; Beharce Lai (Lalla) v. Modho 
Pershad (Lalla) (1866), 6 W. R C R. 
69. 

1 Dossee Monee Dossee v. Ram 
Chand Mohur (1867), 7 W. R. Cl R. 
249. 

2 Ghowdrani v. Tariny JKanth Lahiri 
Ghowdry (1882), 8 Calc. 545. This 
decision was reversed on the facts, 
Dhamni Kani Lahiri v. Kristokumart 
ChowdJirani (1886), 13 I. A. 70; 13 
Calc. 181. See Bindoo Bashince 
Dcbcc v Pearcc. Mohim Bosc (I860), 
6 W. R 0. R. 312. 

3 Sarada Prosad May v. Mahananda 
Hay (1904), 31 Calc. 448. 

4 Narayana v. Krttihna (1884), 8 
Map. 214. 

5 See Chand Hurree Maitee v. 
Norendro Narain Hoy (Rajah} (1873), 
19 W. R, C. R. 231. The purchase 
was made 'by ike managing member 
in the name of tho family priest. 

8 Bannoo v. Ka&hee Ham (1877), 3 
Calc. 315, at p. 317; Sudanund 
Mohapattur v. Soorjo Monee Dayce. 
(1869), 11 W. R. C R. 436. This 
presumption applies also to the case 
where the property has passed by 
sale into the hands of third parties 
and has been redeemed by private 
purchase by a coparcener; Gooroo 
Pershad Moy v. Debee Pershad Tewaree 
(1866), 6 W. R, C. R, 5& 



256 NUCLEUS. [OHAP. vi* 

inquiry, and i! he deals with a single member without obtaining proof that 
the property is separate property he does so at his own risk." * 
Proof of There has been some conflict as to whether it is necessary for the 

nucleus. j>en>ou claiming the property as joint to prove that there was a nucleus 

of family property from which the property in question might have been 
acquired, or whether mere proof that the acquirer was at the time of the 
acquisition a member of a Hindu family is not sufficient. 2 Mr. Mayne 3 
weks to reconcile these decisions by pointing out how the burden of proof 
\ aries in accordance with the nature of the claim to separate property. 

In a recent case the Allahabad High Court * has laid down that in Mitak- 
fchara cases proof of nucleus is necessary, but that none is necessary in 
cafics. governed by the Dayabhaga. The judges relied on the decision 
m NfHr/rt Prowd Rag v. Mahamutla Ray (1004), 31 Calc. 448, but in that 
case, which was governed by the Bengal school, the property was acquired 
during the lifetime of the father, and therefore there was no presumption 
that the property was joint. 5 

It is obvious that there may be joint property without a pre-existing 
nucleus. 6 

It is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down a rule which will suit the 
circumstances of each case, but every weight must be given to the practice 
of sharing property In common as members of a joint family which 
prevails among Hindus. It rarely happens that a case depends upon the 
inerejtiecessily to prove the existence of a nucleus ol family property. 

When it is proved that there was family property, the fruits of which 
were capable of providing for the acquisition of the property in question, 

* XMtosooHdery Dossce v. SaJthaU Dhur (1868), 11 B. L. R. 194, note; 

VowSirkar (1804), 1 W. R. C. R. 38. 10 W. R. C. R. 333 ; JKadhika Prasad 

^ The following cases assert that it Dty v. Dharma Dasi Deli (Mussumat) 

is unnecessary to prove a nucleus: (1860), 3 B. L R 4i C 124- II 

TffrwA Ckundcr Poddar v. Jodeshur W. R. C. R. 400. See Fran Kristo 

rhvvtcr boondoo (1873), 11 B. L. R. Mojoomdar v. Bhagurute Gfoovtia 

103; 19 W. R. C. R. 178; Gdbind (Srmnutty) (1873), 20 W R C R 

Chutidcr Mookerjee v. Doorg*&r**d 158; Chvndro Tara Ma v.' jfefa* 

*6oo (1874), 14 B. L. R. 337; 22 Ali (I860), 11 W. R. C. R. 305; 

W. B. C. R. 248; lAiurAee Mohiin ffurish Chundcr Mockeries v, Moktoda 

Ptil Ctovdhry v. Autkil Ckunder Mia (1872), 17 W. R. C. R. 564- 

&rjte > (187tf),2fi\V.R.C.R.fiaS; Svdanund Mohapattur v, Bnfr 

! rdaratti v. Zarayana (1S77), 2 Mad. Mome Da^e (1869), 11 W. R. C R 

10 ; Tarn Ckurn Mookerjee v. Joyna- 436, at p. 438. 

rain Mrjee (1867), 8 W. R. C R. Hindu Law, ' 8th ed., pp. 373, 

226. In the following cases a different 374. 

view was entertained : Dwrtapnuad * Gorind Chandra Das v. HadJia 

y .Jammdas (1910) 13 Bom. L. R. Arnto Da* (1909), 31 All 477. See 

I ? * M ath Ma ^ v - Ajoodhia also Ham Kitten Das v. Tu*da Mai 

PersadSookul(lS73), 12 B. L. R. 33H ; (1911), 33 All. 677. 

20 W. R. C. R. 65 ; Denonath Shaw Ante, pp. 218, 219. 

B L T^Q m "\^^ (18 ; 3) v i2 6See ***" ***>* ^ 

t J * m Ohunder &**" Oangabai (1908), 32 Bom 479- 10 
mofar v. AwftooMtt Zurmokar (1873), Bom. L. R. 184 ; LaM^ Naranda* v. 

n * n te; ffurM Motibai ^ I908 ) 10 Boia - ^ K. 175; 

Dem v. Gouree Pershad Saridas latji v. Xarotham (1911) U 

R * 237; anle, pp 238 efl! 
^ 



CHAP. VI.] 



USB OF NAMU. 



257 



it is clear that tho burden is upon the person \rho alleges that tho property 
was a separate acquisition. 1 

The absence of a nucleus may be a factor of considerable importance 
for the purpose of determining a question as to whether property was a 
separate acquisition, 2 

The fact that the property had increased during a long period to a 
considerable value from a small nucleus of family property is not sufficient 
to rebut the presumption that it was all family property. 3 

The doctrine of nucleus has no application to 



The purchase of property in the name of one coparcener, or 
the use of his name in documents relating to the property, 5 
the carrying on of law suits by him alone, 6 or an entry of his 
name in revenue records,? does not by itself show that tho 
acquisition was separate, or that there had been a separation, 
particularly where that member is tho managing member of 
the family ; 8 but where a purchaser from such member has been 
misled, the family may, in some cases, be estopped from claiming 
the property as joint, 9 and in conjunction with other evidence 
of separation, or of separate acquisition, such evidence may be 
of importance. 10 

The presumption may be rebutted by showing that the Rebuttal of 

_ * _ presumption. 



1 Lai Bahadur v. Kankaia Lai 
(1907), 34 I. A. 65; 29 All. 244; 
11 a W. N. 417 ; 9 Bom. L. R. 597 ; 
Anandrao Gunputrcto v. Vasantrao 
Madhavrao (1907), 34 Mad. 262, note ; 
11 0. W. W. N. 478 ; 9 Bom L. R. 595. 
See Tara Churn Mookerjee v. Joy- 
narain Mookerjce (1867), 8 W. B. 
C. B. 226. 

* Ehagubai v. Tukaram (1905), 7 
Bom. L. B. 169. 

3 Tottempudi Venkatarainam v. Tot- 
tempudiSeshamma (1903), 27 Mad. 228. 

4 Jan Mahomed v. Datu Jaffar 
(1913), 38 Bom. 449; 15 Bom. L. B 
1044. 

5 Ante, p. 254. Dhurm Das Pandey 
v. Shama Soondri Dibiah (1843), 3 
M. L A. 229, at p. 240 ; 6 W. B. P. C. 
43, at p. 44 ; Parboil Dasi v. Baikuntha 
Nath De (Maja) (1913), 18 C. W. N. 
428 ; 16 Bom. L. B. 101 ; Janokee 
Dassee v. Kisto Komul Stiigh (1862), 
Marsh. 1 ; Deela Singh v. Toofanee 
Singh (1864), 1 W. B. 0. B. 306; 
Beharee Lai (Lalfa) v. Modho Pershad 
(LaUa) (1866), 6 W. B. G. B. 69; 
Runjed Singh v. Madud Ali (1868), 

H.L. 



3 Agra, 222 ; Shibo&oondery Dossee v. 
EakJiall Doss Sirkar (1864), 1 W. B. 
C. B. 38 ; Mun Mokinee Dabee v. 
Soodamonee Dabee (1865), 3 W. R. C. 

B. 31. See Umrittnath Chowdhry v. 
Goureenath Chowdhry (1870), 13 M. I. 
A. 542 ; 6 B. L. B. 232 ; 15 W. R. P. 

C. 10 ; Vedavalli v. Narayana (1877), 
2 Mad. 19 ; Kundan Lai v. Shankar 
Lai (1913), 35 All. 564. 

6 Deela Singh v. Toofanee Singh 
(1865), 1 W. B. C. B. 306. 

7 Jus&xmdah v. Ajodhia Pershad 
(1867), 2 Ind. Jur. N. & 261. See 
Reioa Prasad Sukal v. Deo Dutt Mam 
Subal (1899), 27 I. A. 39; 2 Calc. 
515; 40. W.N. 582. 

8 Kishen Komul Singh v. Janokee 
Dossee (1862), W. B. Sp. No. 3 ; 1 
Ind. Jur. O. S. 23. 

9 See Gour Ghunder Bisivas v. 
Greesh Chunder Bimtm (1867), 7 
W. B. C. R. 120, at p. 122. 

10 See JBhofanaih Mahta v. Ajoodhia 
Persad Soofatl (1873), 12 B. L. B. 
336; 20 W. B. C. B. 65; Peary Loll 
v. Bhawoot Koer (1862), W. B. Sp. 
No. 18. 



258 



REBUTTAfc OF PBES0MPTION, [CHAP, VI, 



Originally a 

separate 

acquisition* 



Possession of 
property. 



property has been self-acquired from separate funds, without 
the aid of the coparcenary property, and that the property is 
held separately, 1 or by proof of separation before the acquisi- 
tion, or by proof that at the time of acquisition there was no 
family property out of which it could have been acquired, 2 or 
by proof of separation after the purchase, and exclusive possess- 
sion of the property thereafter, 3 or by proof of the assent of 
coparceners to the property being treated as separate. 4 

Evidence as to the source of the purchase- money is generally the most 
satisfactory mode of proof, but It is not indispensable. 6 

Where it is admitted or proved that property in dispute was 
not originally coparcenary property, 6 or was not acquired by use 
of coparcenary funds, 7 or that a partition has already taken 
place, 8 the burden lies upon the person alleging the property to 
be joint. 

Where property was in its origin a separate acquisition of 
an individual member of the family, the burden of proving 
that it has become joint property, i.e. that its character has 
been changed by treatment, 9 is on the person making the 
assertion, 10 

There is no presumption that a family possesses any particular 
property, 1 ! or any property at all. 12 A person who claims a 



8 3am Ghulam Singh v. Ram 
Behari Singh (1895), 18 AIL 90; 
Narayan Babaji v. Nana Manohar 
(1870), 7 Bom. H. C. A. C. J. 153, at 
pp. 17H, 177; Ram Gobind Koontf, v. 
Hos&ein Ah' (Moulvie Syud) (1867), 7 
W. R. R. 90 ; Vinayak Narsinvh 
v. Datto Gonnd (1900), 25 Bom. 367 ; 
Prem Chund Dan v. fianmba Debia 
(1871), lo W. R. C. R. 238 

8 Ante, p. 245. 

10 See Venkataramanayamma (2aru 
(Sri JRaja Chelikani] v. Appa Rau 
Bahadur Guru (1897), 20 Mad. 207, at 
p. 220. This decision was set aside on 
appeal (1902), 29 I. A. 156 ; 25 Mad. 
(578; 70. W. N 1, but this dictum as 
to the burden of proof was untouched 
by the decision of the Judicial 
Committee. 

11 See Obfag Churn Ghose v. Gobind 
Chunder Dey (1882), 9 Gale. 237, 

Toolseydas Lvdhu v. Premji Tri* 
wwfat (1$3) 13 Bom, 01, at p, M { 



Surma v. Ooma Moyee 
Dabee (1864), 1 W. R C. R. 107. 

2 See Gungg, Dhur Chatterjee v. 
Soorjo Nath Chatterjee (1871), 15 
W. R. C. E. 446. 

Bhdanath Mahta v. Ajoodkia 
Pcrmd Sookvl (1873), 12 B. L. R. 
336 ; 20 W. R. C. R. 65. 

4 See KftHtanji v. Bczonji, 32 Bom* 
512 ; 10 Bom. L. R 75*. 

6 See Dhurm Das Pandey v. Shama 
Soondri Dibiah (Mussumat) (1843), 
3 M. I. A. 229; 6 W. R. P. C. 43 ; 
DhnnooMharce Lall v. Qunput Lall 
(1868), 11 B. L. R. 201, note; 10 
W. R. C R. 122 ; Bhohmth Mahta v. 
Ajoodhm Persad Sookul (1873), 12 
B. L. R. 336 ; 20 W. R. G. R 85. 

6 See Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh 
<19Q8), 35 I. A. 206; 35 Caje. 1039? 
12 C W. N. 1049 ; 10 Bom. L. R. 790, 

* af&yaH Safoaji v. Nana Manohar 
H. C. A, C. J. 153, at 



CHAP. VI.] BEBUTTAL OF PBESUMPTION, 259 

share in property as belonging to a joint family, of \vhich he is 
admitted or has been proved to be a member, must prove either 
that the property was held or acquired by the members of the 
family as such, 1 or that the person in whose possession it is is 
a member of the family. 2 

He may, of course, rebut evidence of self-acquisition by 
evidence as to the source of the acquisition, or by other evidence 
tending to show that the property was joint. 

There is in India a considerable quantity of immovab