Anglo-Hindu Law - History and Development - Phase 1: Rise of Court Pandits in India - Adoption Cases

Adoption Cases

Collector of Madura v. Muthu Ramalinga Sethupathy (Ramanad case)

• Privy Council held that where the husband's family is undivided, the father of the widow's deceased husband (if living), or at least the surviving brothers, would be the persons whose consent was necessary
• But, where the deceased husband was separate in estate, the consent of every kinsman was not essential
  • There should be evidence of the assent of kinsman as the act is done in the proper performance of a religious duty
    • the reason for the assent of kinsman is the incapacity of women for independence

Abraham v Abraham

• the Privy Council observed that upon the conversion to a Hindu to Christianity the Hindu Law ceases to have any continuing obligatory force on the convert
  • In regards to heirship, the convert could renounce the old law by which he was bound or abide by the old law even though he has renounced his old religion
    • this decision was passed before the Indian Succession actand the native Christians were then governed by the Act
• However, parcenership had to governend by the Hindu law

Venkata v. Subadra – who may give in adoption?

• it was decided that a widow is competent to give in adoption whenever the husband is legally competent to give
  • this case developed three principles to regulate the power to give in adoption:
    • the son is the joint property of the father and the mother for the purpose of a gift in adoption
    • the mother has the predominant interest or potential voice when competition between the father and mother existed
    • the property goes to the mother after the father's death
• Lordships of the Privy Council held that where there is no expressed prohibition women are considered to be independent
  • They did not support the theory of implied prohibition in the absence of express authority in regard to the gift of son in adoption