High CourtsDivision Bench(1906) 02 BOM CK 0006

Venkappa Timappa vs Fakirgowda Govindgowda

Bombay High Court · Decided on 13 February 1906 · Citation: (1906) 8 BOMLR 346

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lawrence Jenkins, J · Aston, J
CASE NUMBER
Second Appeal No. 472 of 1905

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 230 words

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.—This appeal raises the question how far an adopted son is bound by an agreement, made on the occasion of his adoption between his natural parent and adoptive mother, whereby the latter is enabled to give away Immovable property that otherwise would have come to him as adopted son.

2.

Under the agreement in this case the adoptive mother has purported to give away 16 acres, out of a total of 27. Of the 16 acres 4 were given to the defendant, her brother, and it is to recover these 4 acres alone that this suit has been brought by the adopted son. The first Court has decided in the plaintiffs favour, but this decree has been reversed on appeal.

3.

The general question involved is not free from doubt, but the special circumstances of this case are in the plaintiff''s favour.

4.

Accepting the test suggested by Sir Charles Farran in Ravji Vinayakrau Jaggannath Shankarsett v. Lakshmibai ILR (1887) 11 Bom. 381, the stipulations in the agreement were (in our opinion) unreasonable so far as they purported to vest in the adoptive mother power to make the gift she did in favour of the defendant, and that gift therefore is not binding on the minor plaintiff. The decree, therefore, of the District Court should be reversed and that of the first Court restored with costs throughout.