Validate all Charges

Malojirao Abajirao vs. Tarabai Nathajirao and ors

Filed under: Hindu Law of Adoption
Appellant: Malojirao Abajirao
Respondent: Tarabai Nathajirao and ors
Citation: AIR 1956 Bombay 397
Court:In the High Court of Bombay
Judges: Chainani and Vyas

Facts

There was a dispute with regard to the property left behind by Abajirao Nathaji after his death. Several persons laid claim to the property including Malojirao, the adopted son of Abajirao Nathaji. Malojirao’s claim was disputed by Tarabai Nathajirao and others on the ground that Malojirao’s adoption by Abajirao was not valid. It was contended by Tarabai that Abajirao, being of unsound mind and a leper, was incapable of making a valid adoption. Malojirao lost the case in the Trial Court of Satara and thereby filed the present appeal.

Observations by the Court

The High Court held that Malojirao’s adoption by Abajirao was valid and that he had a valid claim to the property left behind by Abajirao.

In reference to the ‘probate’, proceedings regarding the will made by Abajirao’s father the Court instituted an enquiry into his soundness of mind. Abajirao had been kept under observation by the Civil Surgeon, Satara, who gave his opinion that Abajirao had been of sound mind but had suffered from defects of deafness and unclear speech.

The Court further observed that there was no evidence to show that Abajirao’s mental condition had deteriorated thereafter. Thus, the High Court held that there was no evidence to show that Abajirao was suffering from unsoundness of mind.

The Court observed that in order to disqualify a person from making a valid adoption, the person must suffer from leprosy, which is of a virulent type, leading to deformity and rendering him unfit for social intercourse.

The Court observed that Abajirao married five times and this showed that people were still giving their daughters in marriage to him, which showed that he had not become unfit for social intercourse. The Court held that the kind of leprosy that afflicted Abajirao was not virulent and disgusting and was not of a kind that rendered him unfit for social intercourse and hence held that he was capable of making a valid adoption.

Held:The appeal was allowed.

Cases Referred:

  • Ramabai vs. Harnabai, AIR 1924 PC 125 (A)
  • Kayarohana Pathan vs. Subbaraya Thevan, AIR 1916 Mad 470(B)
  • Mohant Bhagaban Ramanuj Das vs. Mohunt Raghunandan Ramanujdas, 22 Ind App 94 (PC) (C)