Goswami Shree Vallabhalaji v Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Bhauji Maharaj
Reference : 1962 AIR 356
Jurisdiction : India
Plaintiff : Goswami Shree Vallabhalaji
Defendant : Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Bhauji Maharaj
Facts :
Aniruddhalalji, as the head of prominent shrines in the Vallabhacharya tradition, was indeed in possession of vast properties. Aniruddhalalji passed away in December 1935, leaving behind his widow, Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj. After his death, his position and the vast properties were going to be inherited by his brother or one of his brother’s sons, both eligible under their custom.
But in 1946, Mahalakshmi adopted another descendant. This decision was a blow to Aniruddhalalji’s brother, who believed the adoption violated their customary practices and legal principles. He sued challenging validity of an adoption made by Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj.
Being aggrieved by the decision by lower court , later, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant (plaintiff) contested the adoption, claiming it violated customary practices and legal principles.
Issues :
1. Whether the adoption made by Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj was valid due to the religious sect’s customary practices?
2. If the adoption was valid, whether the adopted child was entitled to inherit the property?
Arguments :
The appellant argued that the adoption was invalid due to customary and legal challenges. Madras School of Mitakshara Law required the consent of the husband’s sapindas to adopt a child by the widow. As it lacked the consent of the husband’s sapindas, The adoption was invalid due to customary and legal challenges. The appellant also argued that, the adoptee must, if possible, come from the adoptive father’s family.
Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj, claimed that she had authority from her husband, Anniruddhalalji, to adopt. She argued that Anniruddhalalji had authorized her to adopt during his lifetime. While he expressed a preference for adopting a specific boy (the plaintiff’s son), he did not explicitly prohibit other adoptions.
Decisions :
1. The Court rejected the argument that the adoption was invalid due to the absence of consent from the husband’s sapindas. It reasoned that consent was unnecessary since Anniruddhalalji had, during his lifetime, authorized Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj to adopt, as evidenced by a letter and witness testimonies, as indicated in Exhibit 115.
2. The Court found no evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim of specific customs mandating that the adoptee must belong to the adoptive father’s family. The traditions of Goda Dattak adoption, as presented by witnesses, did not establish such limitations.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that no implied prohibition by Anniruddhalalji regarding adopting anyone other than the plaintiff’s son had proven. The plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish this claim.
4. The Court accepted that Mahalakshmi Bahuji Maharaj acted within the authority granted by her husband. It acknowledged her preference for a particular adoptee.
5. As the adoption was valid, the adopted child was entitled to inherit the property of Aniruddhalalji.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. It determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to invalidate the adoption, and the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged customs or restrictions on adoption.
Author :
1. Mohammad Hannan
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
