History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.162.2

v4.c63.t1.162.2

The cases of the posthumous son and of the disqualified heir are expressly provided by way of exceptions. The usual rule is that exceptions are to be strictly limited to the matters expressly stated and are not to be extended by analogy to cases not covered by the words of the exception and that other cases are governed by the general rule. It is a canon of interpretation in Hindu Law that a special text forming an exception to a general text should be construed strictly and applied only to the cases clearly falling within it (*Gangu v. Chandrabhagabai* 32 Bom. 275, 283, *Hanmant v. Ganesh* 43 Bom. 612, 624). Further, a Hindu widow is not compelled to adopt at any particular time; she may adopt at any time during her life. In *Raje Vyankatrao v. Jayavantrao* 4 Bom. H. C. R. (A. C. J.) 191 it is noticed that the widow in that case adopted 71 years after her husband's death. If the reasoning of the learned Judges of Nagpur and Madras is correct then when three or four generations have succeeded to the separating coparceners, an adopted son can reopen the partition after three quarters of a century This result, to say the least, would be most unreasonable. The Nagpur High Court observes that every Hindu widow is a potential mother. This is a fiction which has been carried too far by that court and by the Privy Council.