Raja and anr. Vs. Subbaraya

Raja and anr. vs Subbaraya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 14, 1883

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788030

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/788030
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Muttusami Ayyar, J.
Decided On: Nov 14, 1883
Subject: Family;Property

Case Summary

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

Hindu Law - Sudras--Adoption--Suit for partition by adopted son--Share of adopted son. -

Key legal issue: Family;Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raja and anr.

Respondent

Subbaraya

Legal References

Cases Referred: Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss I.L.R.
Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad253

Excerpt

hindu law - sudras--adoption--suit for partition by adopted son--share of adopted son. - charles a. turner, kt., c.j. and muttusami ayyar, j.1. there is no valid ground for the contention that if the adoption be proved the plaintiff should take but a fifth share. by representation the adopted son takes the share which his adoptive father would be entitled to take on partition. with all deference to the authority of the high court of calcutta in raghubanund doss v. sadhu churn doss i.l.r. 4 cal. 425 we doubt whether the passage in dattaka chandrika, section 5, paragraph 25, even with the addition suggested, has been correctly interpreted. if there be such a special rule, as is suggested, it is not applicable at all events to sudras, among whom the adopted son is declared entitled to take an equal share with a legitimate son who is born subsequently to the adoption. we agree with the judge that the plaintiff would take his father's share, a moiety, if he were really adopted.2. appeal dismissed.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. There is no valid ground for the contention that if the adoption be proved the plaintiff should take but a fifth share. By representation the adopted son takes the share which his adoptive father would be entitled to take on partition. With all deference to the authority of the High Court of Calcutta in Raghubanund Doss v. Sadhu Churn Doss I.L.R. 4 Cal. 425 we doubt whether the passage in Dattaka Chandrika, Section 5, paragraph 25, even with the addition suggested, has been correctly interpreted. If there be such a special rule, as is suggested, it is not applicable at all events to Sudras, among whom the adopted son is declared entitled to take an equal share with a legitimate son who is born subsequently to the adoption. We agree with the Judge that the plaintiff would take his father's share, a moiety, if he were really adopted.

2. Appeal dismissed.

Same Parties Raja and anr. vs Subbaraya Same Subject Family;Property Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Muttusami Ayyar, J.

Family;Property