TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1918 (12) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hom she alleged she had taken in adoption shortly after the death of her husband. Devla has since died, and the adopted son is the present appellant before this Board. The third defendant is a mortgagee claiming tinder a bond executed by Kaliansing. 3. Both the plaintiff and the defendant Shivsing are Chudasama Girasias, a caste of Hindu Rajpoots who, it is said, settled several generations ago in the Dhanduka Taluka appertaining to the Ahmedabad District. The Thakor of Gamph appears to have been one of their principal chiefs, and possessed at one time a considerable number of villages which, by successive grants to junior members of the family, have dwindled now to eight or nine, and the Thakor is naturally anxious to get back as many of these grants as possible. 4. The plaintiff states in his plaint that the grant in question in this case was made by one Milaji, his ancestor in the fifth degree, in favour of his third son Rupsingji ; that on the death of Rupsingji it came into the possession of his two sons, Kesarising and Kaliansing; that subsequently on Kesarising's death without issue, the entire village came into the hands of Kaliansing who held it until his death i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that his adoption affected the plaintiff's right to resume the jivai. And he went on to hold that the documents executed in the proceedings of 1871 amounted to an acknowledgment on the part of the plaintiff's father of an absolute title and interest in Kaliansing in the village of Piparia which descended to the defendant No. 2, and that the plaintiff was estopped from questioning his title. Proceeding on these grounds the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim. 7. On the plaintiff's appeal from this decree the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court have affirmed the finding of the First Court with regard to the factum and, as their Lordships understand the judgment of the High Court, the validity of Shivsing's adoption; they agreed with the trial Judge as to the existence of a right of reversion in the owner of the Taluka in respect of the jivai on the death of the last jivaidar without male issue. But they disagreed with him on the construction of the documents of 1871; they considered that the words on which the Subordinate Judge rested his judgment that the plaintiff's father acknowledged an absolute title in Kaliansing did not bear that mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his further limitation, put forward a custom among the Chudasama Girasias prohibiting widows from making an adoption--a custom wholly at variance with the Hindu law and Hindu religious conceptions. It is not necessary to determine in this case whether such a custom, even if proved to exist in certain localities, would be recognised in the British Indian Courts. But here the plaintiff has entirely failed to establish the custom alleged by him. In the pase of Verabhai Ajubhai v. Bat Hiraba (1903) 27 Bom. 492 : L.R. 30 I.A. 234, which also arose among the Chudasama Girasias, the same custom was put forward with the same result. Both the Courts in India have in this case found that the second defendant was duly taken in adoption by Devla Bai. With that conclusion their Lordships concur. Their Lordships also hold that she had the power to make the adoption, and that Shivsing has the status of a validly adopted son. 10. Now it is an explicit principle of the Hindu law that an adopted son becomes for all purposes, the son of his father, and that his rights unless curtailed by express texts are in every respect the same as those of a natural born son. And a learned authority on Hindu la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., had devolved on the younger brother. Two years after the death of her husband the widow of the elder brother adopted a son to him. And this Board held that the adoption had the effect of defeating the right of the younger brother to the estate, and that the adopted son was entitled to possession. The rule enunciated in Raghunadha's case (1876) 1 Mad. 69 : L.R. 3 I.A 154 was followed in Bachoo v. Mankorebai (1907) 31 Bom, 373. In this case two brothers, Harkisondas and Bhagwandas, were members of a joint undivided Hindu family. Harkisondas died on the 14th September 1900, leaving his widow pregnant. On the 30th November following Bhagwandas made a will authorising his widow to adopt a son to him. Bhagwandas died on the 17th December 1900. Harki-sondas' widow gave birth to a son Bachoo next day, and in the then state of the family Harkisondas' son became entitled to the entire family property. On the 17th February 1901, Bhagwandas' widow adopted Nagar Dass. This Board affirmed the right of the adopted son to the share of his father, holding that the case was governed by the principle laid down in Raghunada's case (1876) 1 Mad, 69 : L.R. 3 I.A. 154. Their Lordshi....