Effect of Old Ruling on the, Earst while place (Of a Region).

samudra (Querist) 03 January 2009 This query is : Resolved
********The Full Bench of this Court( MUMBAI HIGH COURT) in Anirudh's case (Supra) observed,
inter alia, as under:

(a) By following a decision of Seven Judge Bench of the Hyderabad
High Court in the case of Sheshadri v. Venubai, 37 Deccan Law Report
244, in the Marathwada area of the old State of Hyderabad, adoption
of a married person was valid and that Hindus in that area were
governed by the Mayukha or the Bombay School of Hindu Law and not by
the Mitakshara;

(b) a widow can take a boy over 15 years of age in adoption as also
a married person;

(c) the practice of taking married persons and boys over 15 years of
age in adoption in the regions which are governed by the Bombay
School of Hindu Law has been consistently recognised by the Bombay
High Court; and

(d) the expressions "custom" and "usage" as defined in clause (a) of
Section 3 of the Act include not only customs and usages in the
ordinary sense which have obtained the force of law among Hindus in
any local area, tribe, community, group or family, but also texts,
rules and interpretations of Hindu Law which have been continuously
and uniformly observed and have obtained the force of law among
Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family.

The Full Bench summarised its final conclusions in the following words:

"In our opinion, the correct view of the provisions of Clause (a) of
Section 3 and of Section 4 and Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 10
of the said Act was taken by Vaidya and Shimpi, JJ., in Haribai v.
Baba Anna, . We accordingly accept that view and
overrule the view taken by Malvankar,J., in Second Appeal No.1444 of
1965, Bhimrao Vithu Khandagale v. Chandru Savala Khandagale; by
Vimadalal and Naik, JJ., in Laxman Ganpati Khot v. Anusuyabai,
and by Joshi, J., in Balkrishna Raghunath Gharat
v. Sadashiv Hiru Gharat, ."

8. The learned counsel for the respondent was right in his submissions
that the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Anirudh's case
(Supra) has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Kondiba Rama
Papal (Supra) in the following words:

"...The adoption is not invalid although it took place after the
thread ceremony of the boy was performed. Thus the custom is
judicially recognised in the Bombay State as regards adoption of a
child at any age. Once the custom is judicially recognised, it is
not required to be independently proved in subsequent cases...."

. By following the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Anirudh (Supra) and by the Apex Court in the case of Kondiba
(Supra) it will have to be held that in the instant case it was not
necessary for the defendant to prove by evidence before the trial Court
that there was a custom or usage prevailing in the Maratha community in
Satara District of adopting a boy who had crossed the age of 15 years
and was also married at the time of adoption. The contentions of the
appellant that the adoption of the respondent as had taken place on
22-11-1988 was illegal on account of non-compliance of Section 10(iii)
and Section 10(iv) of the Act have to be rejected and thus the
substantial questions of law at serial no.(ii) and (iii) are hereby
answered against the appellant-plaintiff.**********

Will the ruling have effect ( Under the same situation/condition) on the case of a person living in Hyderabad(Andhra Pradesh)at PRESENT. {The person belong to a "Forward cast",of Andhra Pradesh state leading casts}.

Expert Members of this FORUM, in the Family Law to kindly reply to this tricky Question please!

Follow Query

Report Abuse