Sanjivi vs Jalajakshi and Another

The plaintiff and first defendant are dancing girls. The plaintiff claims a share in the property of her adoptive mother, the deceased Lacha. The

first defendant, another adopted daughter of Lacha. denies the plaintiff''s adoption.

We have no doubt but that the plaintiff was brought up as an adopted daughter with the first defendant by the deceased Lacha. The evidence as

to the fact of adoption is not very clear, but on the whole we accept the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge that there was an adoption and such

adoption was in effect, admitted by the first defendant so long ago as 1885. But the validity of the adoption is questioned on two grounds firstly,

because the adoption of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, was made after the Penal Code came into force, and with the intention of bringing her

up to practise prostitution even during her minority and, secondly, because there is no sufficient proof of local usage to support the validity of an

adoption by a dancing girl during the lifetime of a daughter previously adopted. We think that the first objection is valid. That the intention of the

adoption was, as alleged, is clear from the evidence of the plaintiff''s own second witness. The evidence shows that Lacha herself practised

prostitution and took the plaintiff and defendant with her to nautches during their minority.

The evidence also shows that, from the time that plaintiff and first defendant arrived at puberty, they have been prostitutes.

In these circumstances it is idle, in the absence of any trustworthy evidence to that effect, to contend, as plaintiff''s vakil now does, that the

plaintiff''s adoption was with a view to giving her in marriage rather than for prostitution. An adoption made as this was with such intention after the

Indian Penal Code came into force is illegal, and can give the plaintiff no right to claim the property of Lacha by inheritance. In this view it is not

necessary to consider the second objection to the validity of the adoption. Both appeals must therefore, be allowed with costs and the plaintiff''s

suit dismissed with costs.