The consent of the nearest sapindas is necessary for the validity of an adoption by a widow, but if they improperly refuse their consent, the consent of the reversioners next in rank may support the adoption.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside an adoption instituted by the appellants. The three of them are brothers and sons of one Lakshmiah older brother of Ramaswamy, the deceased husband of Rattamma, the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the boy adopted by Rattamma. He is the son of Rajamma, daughter of Rattamma and Ramaswami. Rajamma was married to Ramayya a bro-her of Rattamma. The plaintiffs case is that the alleged adoption of the 2nd defendant by Kattamma on 5-6-1950 is neither true in fact nor valid in law. While maintaining that the adoption set up did not at all take place, they contend that, assuming that it did, it is invalid for the reason that their consent thereto --they being the nearest sapindas-- was not obtained. The defendants, on the other hand, assert that the adoption is true; they also maintain that the adoption is valid in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs withheld their consent to the adoption. Their case is that as the plaintiffs improperly refused to assent to the adoption, the widow obtained the approval of Sapindas next in rank particularly of one of two agnates nearest in relationship to her husband, the other, too having improperly withheld his assent. It is not denied that Venkayya and Kotayya are the reversioners next in degree. The defendants case is that Kotayya having improperly declined to receive a registered notice sought to be served on him seeking his consent, the widow approached his brother Venkayya and obtained his consent. She also claims to have obtained the consent of some remoter reversioners. The trial Court held that the adoption was true as well as valid.

( 2 ) WHEN this appeal came on for hearing, an objection was taken on behalf of the respondents to the consideration of the merits of the appeal based upon the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956 ). Reliance was placed upon Ss. 14 and 15 of that Act. We shall read the sections in so far as they are material for our present purposes : "14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. EXPLANATION : In this Sub-section, property includes both moveable and immoveable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gilt or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a Civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16 : (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (ei) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) : (a)X X X X (b) Any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any prede- ceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in Sub-section (1) in the order specified there in, but upon the heirs of the husband. " The argument on behalf of the respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document