In this he, challenges the validity of the adoption of the second respondent by the first respondent, Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj.
As regards Issue No.
The third around was that Aniruddhalalji had expressed his desire in this matter of adoption in such a manner that there was an implied prohibition by him from taking in adoption anybody except the present appellant or one of his sons.
Accordingly, Issue ,No.
The question of adopting an heir to him assumed importance immediately on his death and it appears there was some talk.
The present suit was brought by the appellant in respect of the Haveli and other properties left by Anniruddhalalji at Nadiad.
2 was number the legally adopted son of Aniruddhalalji and did number acquire any right or shares in his property by the alleged adoption.
of adopting by the Goda Dattak custom one of the sons of the present appellant, who it is necessary to mention.
1s companytention that this letter had been inspired by the plaintiff himself and so number reliance companyld be placed on it.
1 was prohibited by Anniruddhalalji from adopting in the Goda form any one except the plaintiff or one of his sons ?
The other prayers included one for a declaration that he the appellant was the nearest heir of the deceased, that the first respondent had numberother right in the property except as a Hindu widow, for an injunction restraining her from frittering away the property or any part thereof, for an order on her to produce the balance of the sale proceeds of Maharajas Bag which she had sold off and for an order on both these respondents , to render accounts of the properties of Goswami Anniruddhalalji which might have companye into their hands.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 23, 1952, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
The learned Judges of the High Court refused to companysider the further question raised on behalf of the appellant that the adoption was invalid in the absence of companysent of the Sapindas as the proper.
115, apart from his own evidence and evidence of some of his witnesses.
His descendants became the priests and Shebaits of such shrines and also of other shrines established thereafter.
Vallabhacharyaji left his native place near Champaranya in South India, and companying to Gujarat and other parts of India established shrines for the worship of Vishnu at several places.
The appellant challenged the validity of the adoption on three main grounds.
115 was written by the Defendant No.,
The Trial Court companysidered this argument even though the, question whether the Madras School of Mitakshara governed the parties and so the adoption was invalid without the companysent of the husbands, sapindas had number been specifically raised in the pleadings number had any issue been framed on , ,his.
The oral testimony given by the plaintiff and other witnesses in support of the story that Aniruddhalalji had in his life time given certain directions in the matter of adoption of a son to him was also found number reliable.
was the natural brother of Aniruddhalalji.
the adoptee should belong to the family of the adopter ?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. The appellant and the Second respondent are both descendants of Vallabhacharyaji, a great Vaishnava teacher who flourished more than 400 years ago.
12 Does the plaintiff prove that the Defendant No.
These Issues are in the following words Issue No 8 Does the.
57 of 1949.
1 had number obtained the companysent of her husbands sapindas for this adoption and so under the Madras School of Mitakshara Law, which it is said governed the parties, the adoption was invalid.
plaintiff prove the custom that in Goda adoption a widow cannot adopt her sisters husband as a son to her husband ?
V. Viswanatha Sastri, J. B. Dadachanji, S.N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the respondents.
The Trial Court accepted Defendant No.
Issue No.
P. Desai and I. N. Shroff for the appellant.
pleading on which, such a question companyld have been raised had number been made in the plaint and numberissue had been framed.
The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the decision of the High Court after obtaining special leave from this Court.
The learned Judges of High Court agreed with the Trial Court that the plaintiff had number been able to prove either that the wifes sisters husband was number eligible for adoption under the Goda Custom or that the son to be adopted must if possible companye from the family of their adoptive father.
One such shrine was established more than 100 years ago at Nadiad and about the year 1899 A. D. a descendant of Vallabhacharyaji who on adoption took the name of Anniruddhalalji Murlidharji became the head of the Nadiad shrine and was thus possessed of the movable and immovable properties appertaining to the Gadi.
Aniruddhalalji Murlidharji alias Aniruddhalalji Brijeshji died on December 17, 1935 leaving a widow Mahalaksbmi Bahuji Maharaj, who is the first respondent before Us.
Both these adoptions were in accordance with the Goda Dattak custom of adoption which prevailed among the members of the Vallabhacharya companymunity.
One other argument addressed to the Trial Court was that Defendant No.
While each of these Gadis had a temple for the worship of Vishnu, companysiderable properties, movable and immovable were acquired for them from time to time by gift or otherwise.
143 of 1956.
The plaintiffs appeal to the High Court of Bombay met a similar fate.
12 the plaintiff relied on a letter which was marked Ex.
1 under undue influence of the plaintiff.,
These came to be known as Gadis.
8 of the 19 Issues that were framed by the Trial Court while the third ground was raised in Issue No.
The talks however proved fruitless and ultimately on June 1, 1946, the second respondent who as already stated was also a descendant of Vallabhacharya was adopted.
On the question whether there was an implied prohibition to adopt anybody other than the plaintiff or his sons, .also, they agreed with, the Trial Court even though they were number prepared to say that the letter Ex.
This gentleman also became by, adoption head of another shrine known as the Moti Haveli at Jamnagar in the year 1913 and then took a slightly different name Annirudhalalji Brijeshji.
September 13.
The first two grounds were raised in Issue No.
An application for amendment was duly made but was rejected by the learned judges who were of opinion that the application had number been made in good faith.
12 was also answered in the negative.
The main prayer in the suit is for a declaration that respondent No.
