{"id":66889,"date":"1967-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967"},"modified":"2015-08-20T18:17:23","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T12:47:23","slug":"sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967","title":{"rendered":"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1761, \t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 687<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Bhargava<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSAWAN RAM &amp; OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKALA WANTI &amp; OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/04\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nBENCH:\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nWANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1761\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 687\n CITATOR INFO :\n HO\t    1988 SC 845\t (25)\n\n\nACT:\nHindu  Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956)\t Ss.\n9(2)  and  12-Deed  recites adoption given  by\tparents\t and\nconsent\t by mother, If valid-Adoption by widow, if  also  to\nhusband-\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA widow, whose husband had died before the Hindu  Succession\nAct  came  into\t force,\t adopted  respondent  2\t after\t the\nenforcement of the Act.\t On the widow's death, the appellant\nthe  nearest  reversioner  of  her  husband,  filed  a\tsuit\nchallenging  the  adoption.  The trial court  dismissed\t the\nsuit,  which, in appeal, the High Court upheld.\t In  appeal,\nto this Court the appellant contended that (i) the  adoption\nwas-invalid  under  (ii) of s. 6 read with s. 9 (2)  of\t the\nHindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as the son was given  in\nadoption  by his mother, even though his father\t was  alive;\nand (ii) under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,\t an\nindependent  right of adoption is given to Hindu female\t and\nif a widow adopts a son, he becomes the adopted son of\tthe\nwidow only and was not deemed to be the son of her  deceased\nhusband.\nHELD : The appeal must be dismissed.\n(i)  The  evidence  on record established that the  son\t was\ngiven in adoption by both the parents.\tThe deed of adoption\nmentions that the had been given in adoption by his \"Parents\nwhich  necessarily  includes  the  father.   The   following\nsentence  stating  that the mother of the boy had  'put\t her\nthumb-mark  hereunder in token of her consent,' was  put  in\nthe  deed, because s. 9(2) of the Adoptions and\t Maintenance\nAct mentions that the father is not to exercise his right of\ngiving\this child in adoption, save with the consent of\t the\nmother.\t  \"The consent of the, mother\" having been  used  in\nthe  Act  which was applicable, the draftsmen  of  the\tdeed\nincluded  in it the fact that the boy's mother had  actually\ngiven her consent and obtained her thumb-impression in token\nthereof.\n689D-H]\n(ii) The provision in s. 12 of the Act, makes it clear that,\non  adoption  by a Hindu female who has\t been  married,\t the\nadopted\t son  will,  in effect, be the adopted\tson  of\t her\nhusband also.  Under the Shastric Law if a child was adopted\nby  a  widow, he was treated as a  natural-born\t child\tand,\nconsequently, he could divest other members of the family of\nrights\tvested in them prior to his adoption.  It  was\tonly\nwith the limited object of avoiding any such consequence  on\nthe adoption of a child by a Hindu widow that the provisions\nin clause (c) of the proviso to s. 12, and section 13 of the\nAct  were incorporated.\t In that respect, the rights of\t the\nadopted child were restricted.\tIt is to be noted that\tthis\nrestriction  was placed on the rights of a child adopted  by\neither-\t a male Hindu or a female Hindu and not merely in  a\ncase of adoption by a female Hindu.  This restriction on the\nrights\tof the adopted child cannot, therefore, lead to\t any\ninference that a child adopted by a widow will not be deemed\nto be the adopted son of her deceased husband. [694B-C,F-H]\nNara Hanumantha Rao v. Nara Hanumayya and another, [1964]  1\nAndhra Weekly Reporter, 156, discussed.\n688\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 728 of 1964.<br \/>\nAppeal by special leave from the. judgment and decree  dated<br \/>\nSeptember 25, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular<br \/>\nSecond Appeal 343 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   K.\t Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. A.\tD.<br \/>\nMathur, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nBhargava,  J.  One Ramji Dass died leaving behind  a  widow,<br \/>\nSmt.   Bhagwani.   At the time of his death, he\t owned\tsome<br \/>\nland  and a house. 4 bighas and 17 biswas of the  land\twere<br \/>\nmortgaged  by Smt.  Bhagwani on 2nd May, 1948 in  favour  of<br \/>\nrespondent  No. 3, Babu Ram.  Later, on 22nd  August,  1949,<br \/>\nshe executed a deed of gift in respect of the house and\t the<br \/>\nland  covering an area of 50 bighas and 14 biswas in  favour<br \/>\nof Smt.\t Kala Wanti who was related to her as a\t grandniece.<br \/>\nSawan Ram appellant instituted a suit for a declaration that<br \/>\nboth these alienations were without legal necessity and were<br \/>\nnot  binding  on  him,\tclaiming that  he  was\tthe  nearest<br \/>\nreversioner  of Ramji Dass, being his collateral.  In  that,<br \/>\nsuit, Smt.  Bhagwni the donee, Smt.  Kala Wanti,  respondent<br \/>\nNo.  1, and the mortgagee, Babu Ram, respondent No. 3,\twere<br \/>\nimpleaded  as  defendants.  That suit was decreed  and\tSmt.<br \/>\nBhagwani  went up in appeal to the High Court.\t During\t the<br \/>\npendency  of the appeal, Smt.  Bhagwani\t adopted  respondent<br \/>\nNo.  2,\t Deep  Chand, the son of Brahmanand  and  his  wife,<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1, Smt.\tKala Wanti.  A deed of adoption\t was<br \/>\nexecuted  by her in that respect on 24th August, 1959.\t The<br \/>\nappeal was dismissed in spite of this adoption.<br \/>\nSmt.   Bhagwani died on 31st October, 1959,  and  thereupon,<br \/>\nthe appellant brought a suit for possession of the house and<br \/>\nthe  land  which  had  been  gifted  by\t Smt.\tBhagwani  to<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 as well as for possession of the land which<br \/>\nshe had mortgaged with respondent No. 3. It was claimed that<br \/>\nSmt.  Bhagwani\thad  only  a  life  interest  in  all  these<br \/>\nproperties,  because  she had divested herself\tof  all\t the<br \/>\nrights in those properties on 22nd August, 1949, before\t the<br \/>\nHindu Succession Act, 1956 (No. 30 of 1956) came into force.<br \/>\nThe adoption of Deep Chand was also challenged as fictitious<br \/>\nand  ineffective.  It was further urged that, even  if\tthat<br \/>\nadoption  was  valid, Deep Chand became the adopted  son  of<br \/>\nSmt.   Bhagwani and could not succeed to the  properties  of<br \/>\nRamji  Dass.   The suit was dismissed by  the  trial  court,<br \/>\nholding that the adoption of Deep Chand was valid and  that,<br \/>\nthough\tSmt.  Bhagwani had not become the full owner of\t the<br \/>\nproperty  under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,\t Deep  Chand<br \/>\nwas  entitled  to succeed to the property of Ramji  Dass  in<br \/>\npreference to the appellant, so that the appellant could not<br \/>\nclaim possession of these pro-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    689<\/span><\/p>\n<p>perties.   That\t order\twas upheld by  the  High  Court.  of<br \/>\nPunjab,\t and the appellant has now come up to this Court  in<br \/>\nappeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this appeal before us, only two points have been urged by<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant.  The first point taken is<br \/>\nthat,  even  though  the appellant  did\t not  challenge\t the<br \/>\nfinding of fact that respondent No. 2 was, in fact,  adopted<br \/>\nby  Smt.  Bhagwani, that adoption was invalid  under  clause<br \/>\n(Ii) of section 6 read with sub-s. (2) of s. 9 of the  Hindu<br \/>\nAdoptions  and\tMaintenance  Act,  1956\t (No.  78  of  1956)<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;).  It is urged  that,<br \/>\nunder  s.  9  (2) of the Act, if the father of\ta  child  is<br \/>\nalive,\the alone has the right to give in  adoption,  though<br \/>\nthe  right is not to be exercised, save with the consent  of<br \/>\nthe  mother.   In  this case, reliance\twas  placed  on\t the<br \/>\nlanguage of the deed of adoption dated 14th August, 1959, to<br \/>\nurge that Deep Chand was, in fact, given in adoption to Smt.<br \/>\nBhagwani  by his mother, respondent No. 1, even\t though\t his<br \/>\nfather, Brahmanand, was alive.\n<\/p>\n<p>This point raised on behalf of the appellant is negatived by<br \/>\nthe  evidence on the record.  There is oral evidence of\t the<br \/>\nadoption which has been accepted by the lower courts, and it<br \/>\nshows  that.  Deep Chand was given in adoption by  both\t the<br \/>\nparents to Smt.\t Bhagwani.  Even the deed of adoption  dated<br \/>\n24th August, 1959, on which reliance was placed on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellant in support of this argument, does not bear out<br \/>\nthe suggestion that Deep Chand was given in adoption by\t his<br \/>\nmother\tand  not by his father.\t The deed  clearly  mentions<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;the  parents of Deep Chand have, of  their  own\tfree<br \/>\nwill,  given, Deep Chand to me, the executant, today  as  my<br \/>\nadopted\t son.&#8221;\tThis recitation is followed  by\t a  sentence<br \/>\nwhich states : &#8220;Mst.  Kala Wanti, mother of Deep Chand,\t has<br \/>\nput  her thumb-mark hereunder in token of her  consent.&#8221;  It<br \/>\nwas from this solitary sentence that inference was sought to<br \/>\nbe  drawn that Deep Chand had been given in adoption by\t his<br \/>\nmother, Kala Wanti and not by the father.  The deed, in\t the<br \/>\nearlier\t sentence quoted above, clearly mentions  that\tDeep<br \/>\nChand  had  been given in adoption by  his  &#8220;parents&#8221;  which<br \/>\nnecessarily  includes the father.  This later  sentence,  it<br \/>\nappears,  was  put in the deed, because s. 9(2) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nmentions  that\tthe father is not to exercise his  right  of<br \/>\ngiving\this child in adoption, save with the consent of\t the<br \/>\nmother.\t &#8220;The consent of the mother&#8221; having been used in the<br \/>\nAct which was applicable, the draftsmen of the deed included<br \/>\nin  it the fact that Deep Chand&#8217;s mother had actually  given<br \/>\nher  consent  and  obtained her\t thumb-impression  in  token<br \/>\nthereof.  This mention of the consent cannot, in these\tcir-<br \/>\ncumstances,  be held to show that it was the mother who,  in<br \/>\nfact, gave the child in adoption and not the father.<br \/>\nThe  second point and the one, on which reliance  is  mainly<br \/>\nplaced\tby  learned  counsel for  the  appellant,  is  that,<br \/>\naccording<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">690<\/span><br \/>\nto  him, under the Act, an independent right of adoption  is<br \/>\ngiven  to  a Hindu female and if a widow adopts\t a  son,  he<br \/>\nbecomes\t the adopted son of the widow only and is not to  be<br \/>\ndeemed\tto  be the son of her deceased husband.\t  Under\t the<br \/>\nShastric  Hindu\t Law,  no doubt, if a Hindu  widow  made  an<br \/>\nadoption  after\t the death of her husband on  the  basis  of<br \/>\nconsent\t obtained from him in his lifetime, the adopted\t son<br \/>\nwas  deemed to be the son of the deceased husband also;\t but<br \/>\nit is urged that the Act has completely changed this policy.<br \/>\nIn  support  of this proposition, learned counsel  drew\t our<br \/>\nattention to the provisions of s. 8 of the Act, under  which<br \/>\nany female Hindu, who is of sound mind, who is not a  minor,<br \/>\nand  who is not married, or if married, whose  marriage\t has<br \/>\nbeen  dissolved or whose husband is dead or  has  completely<br \/>\nand finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a  Hindu<br \/>\nor has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to<br \/>\nbe of unsound mind, has been granted the capacity to take  a<br \/>\nson  or a daughter in adoption.\t Then reference was made  to<br \/>\ns. 12 of the Act, which runs as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;12.   An adopted child shall be deemed to  be<br \/>\n\t      the  child  of his or her adoptive  father  or<br \/>\n\t      mother  for all purposes with effect from\t the<br \/>\n\t      date  of adoption and from such date  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      ties of the child in the family of his or\t her<br \/>\n\t      birth  shall  be\tdeemed\tto  be\tsevered\t and<br \/>\n\t      replaced\tby those created by the adoption  in<br \/>\n\t      the adoptive family;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided that-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   the\t child cannot marry any person\twhom<br \/>\n\t      he or she could not have married if he or\t she<br \/>\n\t      had  continued  in the family of\this  or\t her<br \/>\n\t      birth;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   any property which vested in the adopted<br \/>\n\t      child  before the adoption shall\tcontinue  to<br \/>\n\t      vest   in\t  such\t person\t  subject   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      obligations,  if any, attaching to the  owner-<br \/>\n\t      ship   of\t  such\t property,   including\t the<br \/>\n\t      obligation to maintain relatives in the family<br \/>\n\t      of his or her birth-,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   the\t adopted child shall not divest\t any<br \/>\n\t      person  of any estate which vested in  him  or<br \/>\n\t      her before the adoption.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Reliance was also placed on sections 13 and 14<br \/>\n\t      of the Act which are reproduced below:-<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;13.    Subject  to  any\tagreement   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      contrary,\t an  adoption does not\tdeprive\t the<br \/>\n\t      adoptive\tfather\tor mother of the power\tto<br \/>\n\t      dispose  of  his or her property\tby  transfer<br \/>\n\t      inter vivos or by will.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      14.   (1) Where a Hindu who has a wife  living<br \/>\n\t      adopts a child, she shall be deemed to be\t the<br \/>\n\t      adoptive mother.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">691<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   Where an adoption has been made with the<br \/>\n\t      consent of more than one wife, the senior most<br \/>\n\t      in  marriage among them shall be deemed to  be<br \/>\n\t      the  adoptive  mother and the  others  to\t be,<br \/>\n\t      step-mothers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (3)   Where  a widower or a bachelor adopts  a<br \/>\n\t      child,  any wife whom he subsequently  marries<br \/>\n\t      shall be. deemed to be; the stepmother of\t the<br \/>\n\t      adopted child.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (4)   Where  a  widow or\tan  unmarried  woman<br \/>\n\t      adopts  a child, any husband whom she  marries<br \/>\n\t      subsequently   shall  be\tdeemed\tto  be\t the<br \/>\n\t      stepfather of the adopted child.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On  the\t basis of these provisions, it was  urged  that\t the<br \/>\nscheme\t  of  the Act is that, when a Hindu female adopts  a<br \/>\nchild,\the becomes the adopted son of the Hindu female\tonly<br \/>\nand  does  not necessarily become the son  of  the  deceased<br \/>\nhusband,  if the Hindu female be a widow. Emphasis was\tlaid<br \/>\non the fact &#8216;that even\t an   unmarried\t female\t  Hindu\t  is<br \/>\npermitted to take a son or daughter in adoption and in\tsuch<br \/>\na case, naturally, no question would arise   of the  adopted<br \/>\nchild becoming the adopted son of a Hindu male\t  also.\t  In<br \/>\nthis  connection, reliance was placed on a decision  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nara Hanumantha Rao v. Nara<br \/>\nHanumayya and Another(1). For convenience, the facts of that<br \/>\ncase may be briefly reproduced as given in the head-note  to<br \/>\nindicate the question of law that fell to be decided. A\t and<br \/>\nhis  two sons B and C were members of a Hindu joint  family.<br \/>\nB  died on 26th August, 1924 leaving behind his widow  D.  A<br \/>\ndied in the year 1936. On 17th June, 1957, D adopted E,\t and<br \/>\nE  filed the suit against C and his son F for partition\t and<br \/>\nseparate  possession of a half share in the properties.\t The<br \/>\ntrial court held :  (1)\t that  there is a custom  among\t the<br \/>\nmembers of the Kamma\t caste,\t  to   which   the   parties<br \/>\nbelonged, whereby the adoption of a\tboy  more  than\t  15<br \/>\nyears old is valid; and (2) that the adoption\t  of E could<br \/>\nnot have the result of divesting the interest of B that\t had<br \/>\nvested\tin C long prior to the date of the adoption,  having<br \/>\nregard\tto  the provisions of the Act. In appeal,  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  upheld  the decision of the trial court on  both\t the<br \/>\npoints that were    raised.  The  existence  of\t the   caste<br \/>\ncustom, by which boys aged    more  than 15 years  could  be<br \/>\nadopted, was held to be sufficiently\tproved by  evidence.<br \/>\nThen the High Court proceeded to consider    the  provisions<br \/>\nof the Act to find out whether E could claim a\t  share\t  in<br \/>\nthe property of B, the deceased husband of D who had adopted<br \/>\nhim. The learned Judges of the High Court enumerated   the<br \/>\ncontents  of  the various relevant sections of the  Act\t and<br \/>\nthen\t  proceeded  to\t consider whether E  could  claim  a<br \/>\nright\tin  the\t property  left\t by  B.\t The  Court,   after<br \/>\nreproducing the provisions of s.   12 of the Act held :<br \/>\n(1) [1964] I Andhra Weekly Reporter, 156.\n<\/p>\n<p>69 2<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Under  the  terms of the\t above\tsection,  an<br \/>\n\t      adopted child is deemed to be the child of his<br \/>\n\t      or  her  adoptive\t father or  mother  for\t all<br \/>\n\t      purposes\twith  effect from the  date  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      adoption.\t  Relying  on  the  words  &#8220;for\t all<br \/>\n\t      purposes&#8221;, it is argued that the adopted child<br \/>\n\t      has  the\tsame rights and\t privileges  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      family of the adopter as the legitimate child.<br \/>\n\t      From  the\t language  of  the  section,  it  is<br \/>\n\t      manifest that an adopted child is deemed to be<br \/>\n\t      the  child  of his or her adoptive  father  or<br \/>\n\t      mother.  The use of the word &#8220;or&#8221; between\t the<br \/>\n\t      words   &#8220;father&#8221;\tand  &#8220;mother&#8217;\tmakes\tthis<br \/>\n\t      abundantly  clear.  The use of the  expression<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;with  effect  from the date of  adoption&#8221;  as<br \/>\n\t      also the language of clause (c) of the Proviso<br \/>\n\t      are  important.  The expression  &#8220;with  effect<br \/>\n\t      from the date of adoption&#8221; introduces a  vital<br \/>\n\t      change in the pre-existing law.  Under the law<br \/>\n\t      as   it  stood  before  the  Act\t came\tinto<br \/>\n\t      operation, the ground on which an adopted\t son<br \/>\n\t      was held entitled to take in defeasance of the<br \/>\n\t      rights  acquired\tprior to  his  adoption\t was<br \/>\n\t      that, in the eye of law, his adoption  related<br \/>\n\t      back, by a legal fiction, to the date of death<br \/>\n\t      of  his  adoptive father.\t The rights  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      adopted  son, which were rested on the  theory<br \/>\n\t      of  &#8220;relation back&#8221;, can no longer be  claimed<br \/>\n\t      by  him.\t This  is clear\t from  the  specific<br \/>\n\t      provision made in s. 12 that the rights of the<br \/>\n\t      adopted are to be determined with effect\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      the  date\t of  adoption.\tClause\t(c)  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Proviso  to s. 12 lays down the explicit\trule<br \/>\n\t      that  the adoption of a son or daughter, by  a<br \/>\n\t      male  or female Hindu is not to result in\t the<br \/>\n\t      divesting\t of any estate vested in any  person<br \/>\n\t      prior to the adoption.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>When finally expressing its opinion on the question of law,<br \/>\nthe Court said :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The Act has made a notable departure from the<br \/>\n\t      previous\tlaw in allowing a widow to  adopt  a<br \/>\n\t      son  or daughter to herself in her own  right.<br \/>\n\t      Under  the  Act, there is no question  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      adopted child divesting of any property vested<br \/>\n\t      in  any  person  or  even\t in  herself.\t The<br \/>\n\t      provisions  of section 13 make  this  position<br \/>\n\t      clear, by providing that an adoption does\t not<br \/>\n\t      deprive  the adoptive father or mother of\t the<br \/>\n\t      powers  to dispose of his or her\tproperty  by<br \/>\n\t      transfer\tinter vivos or by will&#8230; On a\tfair<br \/>\n\t      interpretation of the provisions of section 12<br \/>\n\t      of  the  Act, we are of the opinion  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      section  has  the\t effect\t of  abrogating\t the<br \/>\n\t      ordinary\trule  of Mitakshara law that,  as  a<br \/>\n\t      result of the adoption made by the widow,\t the<br \/>\n\t      adoptee  acquires rights to the share of\this.<br \/>\n\t      deceased<br \/>\n\t      39 6<br \/>\n\t      adoptive\t father\t  which\t  has\tpassed\t  by<br \/>\n\t      survivorship to his father&#8217;s brothers.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We   are  unable  to  accept  this  interpretation  of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as it<br \/>\nappears\t to  us that the High Court  ignored  two  important<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act and did not consider their effect when<br \/>\narriving at its decision.  The first provision, which is  of<br \/>\ngreat  significance,  is contained in s. 5 (1)\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\nwhich  lays  down  : &#8220;No adoption shall be  made  after\t the<br \/>\ncommencement  of  this\tAct  by or  to\ta  Hindu  except  in<br \/>\naccordance  with the provisions contained in  this  Chapter,<br \/>\nand   any  adoption  made  in  contravention  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nprovisions  shall be void.&#8221; It is significant that, in\tthis<br \/>\nsection, the adoption to be made is mentioned as &#8220;by or to a<br \/>\nHindu&#8221;.\t Thus, adoption is envisaged as being of two  kinds.<br \/>\nOne  is adoption by a Hindu, and the other is adoption to  a<br \/>\nHindu.\tIf the view canvassed on behalf of the appellant  be<br \/>\naccepted,  the consequence will be that there will  be\tonly<br \/>\nadoptions  by Hindus and not to Hindus.\t On the face of\t it,<br \/>\nadoption  to  a Hindu was intended to cover cases  where  an<br \/>\nadoption  is by one person, while the child adopted  becomes<br \/>\nthe adopted son of another person also.\t It is only in\tsuch<br \/>\na  case that it can be said that the adoption has been\tmade<br \/>\nto  that  other\t person.   The\tmost  common  instance\twill<br \/>\nnaturally  be  that  of adoption by a female  Hindu  who  is<br \/>\nmarried\t and  whose husband is dead, or has  completely\t and<br \/>\nfinally renounced the world, or has been declared by a court<br \/>\nof competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.  In such  a<br \/>\ncase,  the  actual adoption would be by\t the  female  Hindu,<br \/>\nwhile the adoption will be not only to herself, but also  to<br \/>\nher  husband  who  is dead, or has  completely\tand  finally<br \/>\nrenounced  the world or has been declared to be\t of  unsound<br \/>\nmind.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  second  provision,\t which was  ignored  by\t the  Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh High Court, is one contained in s. 12 itself.\t&#8216;The<br \/>\nsection,  in its principal clause, not only lays  down\tthat<br \/>\nthe adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his  or<br \/>\nher  adoptive father or mother for all purposes with  effect<br \/>\nfrom. the date of the adoption, but, in addition, goes on to<br \/>\ndefine\tthe rights of such an adopted child.  It  lays\tdown<br \/>\nthat from such date all the ties of the child in the  family<br \/>\nof  his\t or  her birth shall be deemed\tto  be\tsevered\t and<br \/>\nreplaced  by those created by the adoption in  the  adoptive<br \/>\nfamily.\t  A question naturally arises what is  the  adoptive<br \/>\nfamily of a child who is adopted by a widow, or by a married<br \/>\nwoman whose husband has completely and finally renounced the<br \/>\nworld or has been declared to be of unsound mind even though<br \/>\nalive.\t It  is\t well-recognized that,\tafter  a  female  is<br \/>\nmarried,  she  belongs to the family of\t her  husband.\t The<br \/>\nchild  adopted\tby her must also, therefore, belong  to\t the<br \/>\nsame family.  On adoption by a widow, therefore, the adopted<br \/>\nson  is\t to be deemed to be a member of the  family  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased husband of the widow.\tFurther still, he loses\t all<br \/>\nhis rights in the family of his birth and those rights<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">694<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>-are  replaced by the rights created by the adoption in\t the<br \/>\nadoptive family.  The right, which the child had, to succeed<br \/>\nto  property  by  virtue of being the  son  of\this  natural<br \/>\nfather, in the family of his birth, is, thus, clearly to  be<br \/>\nreplaced  by  similar rights in the adoptive  family  and,<br \/>\nconsequently, he would certainly obtain those rights in\t the<br \/>\ncapacity of a member of that family as an adopted son of the<br \/>\ndeceased husband of the widow, or the married female, taking<br \/>\nhim in adoption.  This provision in s. 12 of the Act,  thus,<br \/>\nitself\tmakes it clear that, on adoption by a  Hindu  female<br \/>\nwho  has &#8216;been married, the adopted son will, in effect,  be<br \/>\nthe  adopted  son  of her husband  also.   This\t aspect\t was<br \/>\nignored\t by the Andhra Pradesh High Court when dealing\twith<br \/>\nthe  effect  ,of the language used in other  parts  of\tthis<br \/>\nsection.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  may, however, be mentioned that the conclusion which  we<br \/>\nhave arrived at does not indicate that the ultimate decision<br \/>\ngiven  by  the\tAndhra Pradesh High Court  was\tin  any\t way<br \/>\nincorrect.   As we have mentioned earlier, the\tquestion  in<br \/>\nthat  case as whether E, after the adoption by D, the  widow<br \/>\nof B, could divest C of the rights which had already  vested<br \/>\nin  C  before the adoption.  It is significant that  by\t the<br \/>\nyear  1936  C was the sole male member of ,the\tHindu  joint<br \/>\nfamily\twhich  owned the disputed property.  B died  in\t the<br \/>\nyear  1924  and\t A died in 1936.  By that  time,  the  Hindu<br \/>\nWomen&#8217;s\t Rights\t to Property Act had not been  enacted\tand,<br \/>\nconsequently,  C,  as the sole male survivor of\t the  family<br \/>\nbecame full owner of that property.  In these circumstances,<br \/>\nit was clear that after, the adoption of E by D, E could not<br \/>\ndivest C of the rights already vested in him in view of\t the<br \/>\nspecial provision contained in clause (c) of the proviso  to<br \/>\ns.  12\tof  the\t Act.  It appears that,\t by  making  such  a<br \/>\nprovision,  the\t Act  has narrowed down\t the  rights  of  an<br \/>\nadopted\t child as compared with the rights of a\t child\tborn<br \/>\nposthumously.\tUnder  the  Shastric law,  if  a  child\t was<br \/>\nadopted\t by a widow, he was treated as a natural-born  child<br \/>\nand,  consequently,  he could divest other  members  of\t the<br \/>\nfamily\tof rights vested in them prior to his adoption.\t  It<br \/>\nwas  only  with\t the limited object  of\t avoiding  any\tsuch<br \/>\nconsequence on the adoption of a child by a Hindu widow that<br \/>\nthese provisions in clause (c) of the proviso to s. 12,\t and<br \/>\nsection\t 13 of the Act were incorporated.  In that  respect,<br \/>\nthe  rights of the adopted child were restricted.  It is  to<br \/>\nbe noted that this restriction was placed on the rights of a<br \/>\nchild  adopted by either a male Hindu or a female Hindu\t and<br \/>\nnot  merely in a case of adoption by a female  Hindu.\tThis<br \/>\nrestriction  on\t the  rights of the  adopted  child  cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore,  in\tour opinion, lead to any  inference  that  a<br \/>\nchild  adopted\tby  a widow will not be\t deemed\t to  be\t the<br \/>\nadopted\t son  of her deceased husband.\t The  second  ground<br \/>\ntaken on behalf of the appellant also, therefore, fails.<br \/>\nThe appeal is, consequently, dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Y.P.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">695<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1761, 1967 SCR (3) 687 Author: V Bhargava Bench: Bhargava, Vishishtha PETITIONER: SAWAN RAM &amp; OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: KALA WANTI &amp; OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/1967 BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA WANCHOO, K.N. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T12:47:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T12:47:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3498,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\",\"name\":\"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T12:47:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T12:47:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967","datePublished":"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T12:47:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967"},"wordCount":3498,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967","name":"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T12:47:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sawan-ram-others-vs-kala-wanti-others-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sawan Ram &amp; Others vs Kala Wanti &amp; Others on 19 April, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}