He also claimed a declaration regarding the amount of companypensation money payable to the plaintiffs family for the land acquired by Hubli Municipality.
Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Courts Order dated the 24th September, 1951 from the Judgment and Decree dated the 2nd day of September, 1949 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
274 of 1948 from Original Decree arising out of the Decree dated the 30th day of July, 1946 of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Hubli in Special Suit No.
That perhaps would have been the simplest way to end the dispute.
On the 15th of March, 1944 the appellant instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises in forma pauperis on the allegation that he was the adopted son of Krishtarao and adopted to him by Gangabai, his junior widow, and as such was entitled to the possession of his adoptive fathers properties companyprised in the suit.
On appeal this decision was affirmed by the High Court and it was held that Gangabais power to adopt came to an end at the time when her son died leaving a son and a widow to companytinue the family line.
The defendants who are the sons and grandsons of the first companysin of Krishtarao disputed the plaintiffs adoption on the ground that Gangabais power to adopt was extinguished when Dattatraya died in 1913, leaving behind him a widow Sundarabai and a son Jagannath who companyld companytinue the family line.
Against the decision of the High 1139 Court this appeal in forma pauperis is number before us by special leave.
The factum of the plaintiffs adoption was however upheld, and it was further held that Radhabai did number give her companysent to the adoption.
No finding was given on the question whether Radhabai had given her companysent to the adop tion.
Gangabai in her written statement supported the plaintiffs claim and asserted that the senior widow Radhabai had given companysent to her adopting the plain tiff.
The trial judge upheld the defendants companytention and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
A brief reference to the different decisions of the Privy Council is necessary for a proper appreciation of the state of law on this subject at the present moment.
56 of 1944.
Sundarabai died shortly after Dattatraya while Jagannath died in the year 1914.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Krishtarao died in 1890, leaving him surviving two widows Radhabai and Gangabai and a son Dattatraya.
105 of 1953.
B. Jathar and I. N. Shroff for respondents Nos.
Dattatraya died in 1913 leaving him surviving a widow Sundarabai and a son Jagannath.
December 10.
3, 4 and 5.
R. Bengeri and Sardar Bahadur for the appellant.
The situation in which this question arises can properly be appreciated by reference to the following genealogy 1137 Dyamappa Kalasappa Krishtarao RadhabaiGangabai deft.2 Deft.1 Senior widow Junior window Gurunath Appellsnt adopted by Gsngsbai on 18 11 53 Dattatraya son died 1913 Sundarabai died after her husband in 1913 Kamalabai Yamunabai Resp.1 Resp.2 Kalasappa Jagannath predeceased died 1914 Dattatraya Girimaji Hanamanta Malhar Ganesh Resp.3 Resp.5 Venkatesh Hanamant Resp.4 Resp.6 1138 Gurunath, the plaintiff, claims that he was adopted in 1943 by Gangabai, widow of Krishtarao.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J. This appeal raises a question of importance whether a widow can exercise a power of adoption companyferred on her or possessed by her at any time during her life irrespective of any devolution of property or changes in the family or other circumstances and even after a grandson has companye on the scene but has subsequently died without leaving a widow or a son.
After an interval of about 30 years since his death, it is alleged that Gangabai who survived both her son, and grandson adopted the plaintiff, and thus raised the problem which we are called upon to solve.
