Judgement

Appeal (No. 2 of 1944) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (April 22, 1941) which had reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Baptala (January 31, 1939).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The plaintiffs were the appellants before the Board. The appeal arose out of a suit to set aside an adoption. The following genealogical table shows the relationship of the persons concerned in the appeal—

Law Rep. 74 Ind. App. 162 ( 1946- 1947) Ghanta China Ramasubbayya V. Moparthi Chenchuramayya, Minor 108

Moparthi Venkayya | || Perayya Pitchayya | (wife Pullamma, died | 19th June, 1937) || | Venkayya Punnayya (died)

(died) | wife) Purmamma

| | (m. Ghanta Pitchayya)

| |

| | | | |

Rangayya Ramasubbayva Perayya Ramasubbayya Rangayya

1st Defendant) 2nd Respondent | | | (4th Defendant) 4th Respondent (died) (Ghanta) (1st Plaintiff) 1st Appellant (Ghanta) (2nd Plaintiff) 2nd Appellant

| |

Punnayya Chenchura-m

(2nd ayya

Defendant) (3rd

3rd Defendant)

Respondent 1st

Respondent

The parties were governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law as administered in the Andhra country, in the Madras Presidency. Moparthi Venkayya, their common ancestor, had two sons, Perayya and Pitchayya. Pitchayya was divided from Perayya. The respondents were the descendants of Perayya, while the appellants were the descendents of Pitchayya. Pitchayya, who had three wives, died in 1884, leaving surviving him a widow, Pullamma, and a daughter by his first wife, Punnamma (predeceased), who had two sons— the appellants before the Board. On March 22, 1937, Pullamma adopted Chenchuramayya (3rd defendant, respondent No. 1). Her husband had not given her power to adopt. Before the adoption she had obtained consent to the adoption of all her husbands nearest agnates, namely, Rangayya (1st defendant, respondent No. 2), Ramasubbayya (4th defendant, respondent No. 4), and Perayya, since deceased. On April 12, 1937, Pullamma executed a will, which recited that Chenehuramayya was her adopted son and bequeathed to him all her own property (stridhan) and the property which passed to her on her husbands death. No question arose in this appeal with respect to the will, which had been found to be valid On June 19, 1937, Pullamma died.

On July 14, 1937, the appellants instituted the suit out of which this appeal arose, claiming the properties as the next reversioners, alleging that the adoption of the first respondent was not true and that, even if true, it was invalid as their consent to the adoption had not been obtained before it was made. The contesting defendant denied those allegations, and stated that the adoption was valid as it was made by ullamma after obtaining the permission of her husbands nearest agnates.

(Daughter by a previous

The Subordinate Judge found that the adoption of the first respondent was not proved to have been made; that, even if true, it was not valid as it was not made bona fide but to spite the appellants and divert the succession from them; and that the assent of the appellants, which was necessary to make it valid, had not been obtained. The learned judges of the High Court (King and Patanjali Sastri JJ.) held that the adoption was proved. As regards the validity of the adoption, they held it was valid as it was conceded before them that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in Seshamma v. Narasimharao (I. L. R. [ 1940] M. 454.) an adoption to which the consent of the agnatic relations alone had been obtained was valid.

1947. Jan, 30, Feb. 3, 4. Subba Row and Ralph Parikh for the appellants. It is contended, first, that the adoption is not true, and secondly, that, assuming it to be true, it is invalid for want of consent of the appellants, who are daughters sons and the next reversioners. On the first point, the evidence as to the alleged adoption supports the submission that no actual adoption took place, which was the view of the Subordinat