Court case(1868) 12 MIA 397

Under the Hindu system of law clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law. A widow of the Dravida school may validly adopt with the assent of her husband's sapindas even without his express authority.

The Zamindar of Ramnad (Madura district, Madras Presidency) died without a son and without having authorised his widow to adopt. The widow, Rani Parvata Vardhani, afterwards adopted Moottoo Ramalinga with the assent of her husband's kinsmen (sapindas). The validity of the adoption, and with it the succession to the Ramnad zamindari, was disputed; the Collector of Madura, representing the estate, resisted the adopted son's claim. The written texts of the Dharmashastra were not uniform on whether a widow may adopt without the husband's express permission, and the practice of the Dravida country differed from that of Bengal and Mithila.

The Judicial Committee held the adoption valid. Reviewing the schools of Hindu law, the Board found that in the Dravida country a widow may adopt with the assent of her husband's sapindas where he has given no authority, whereas Bengal requires the husband's permission and Mithila does not permit a widow to adopt at all. The Board laid down two principles that have governed Hindu law ever since: the duty of a European judge is not to speculate on what the texts ought to mean but to apply the law as received and acted upon in the locality through its commentators; and, in the famous words of the judgment, under the Hindu system of law clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law.