Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gopal Anant Vs. Narayan Ganesh

Gopal Anant vs Narayan Ganesh

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Feb 02, 1888
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/336397

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Hindu Law - Adoption by an unmarried man. - - The argument pressed upon us in support of the invalidity, of the adoption is very much the same as that unsuccessfully urged in N. but we think the reasoning adopted there applies as well to the present case.

Key legal issue
Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopal Anant

Respondent

Narayan Ganesh

Legal References

Reported In
(1888)ILR12Bom329

Excerpt

hindu law - adoption by an unmarried man. - - the argument pressed upon us in support of the invalidity, of the adoption is very much the same as that unsuccessfully urged in n. but we think the reasoning adopted there applies as well to the present case.nanabhai haridas, j.1. the fact of the plaintiffs adoption by the deceased ganesh gopal is held proved by the lower court. the only question we have to determine, therefore, is its validity. it is urged on behalf of the appellant that it is not valid because ganesh gopal was not a married man at the time of the adoption. no authority is shown to us in support of the contention that an adoption by an unmarried man is invalid, nor are we aware of any such. the hindu law lays down generally that one who is sonless may adopt; and, in the absence of any text or judicial decision to the contrary, we do not think we should be justified in putting any restriction upon the power so generally given. the argument pressed upon us in support of the invalidity, of the adoption is very much the same as that unsuccessfully urged in n. chandvasekharudu v. n. bramhanna 4 mad. h.c. r. 270 ;and we agree in the view taken of the hindu law by the learned judges who decided that case. it is true that was the case of a widower, and not of an unmarried man as here; but we think the reasoning adopted there applies as well to the present case.2. we must therefore confirm the decree of the lower court with costs.

Full Judgment

Nanabhai Haridas, J.

1. The fact of the plaintiffs adoption by the deceased Ganesh Gopal is held proved by the lower Court. The only question we have to determine, therefore, is its validity. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that it is not valid because Ganesh Gopal was not a married man at the time of the adoption. No authority is shown to us in support of the contention that an adoption by an unmarried man is invalid, nor are we aware of any such. The Hindu law lays down generally that one who is sonless may adopt; and, in the absence of any text or judicial decision to the contrary, we do not think we should be justified in putting any restriction upon the power so generally given. The argument pressed upon us in support of the invalidity, of the adoption is very much the same as that unsuccessfully urged in N. Chandvasekharudu v. N. Bramhanna 4 Mad. H.C. R. 270 ;and we agree in the view taken of the Hindu law by the learned Judges who decided that case. It is true that was the case of a widower, and not of an unmarried man as here; but we think the reasoning adopted there applies as well to the present case.

2. We must therefore confirm the decree of the lower Court with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial