1. Heard Srinivas Emani, Counsel representing the appellant and Sri M.Krishna Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.

2. This Court on 1-4-1999 made the following order:

"Admit in view of the substantial questions raised in GroundNos.1,2,4,7,8 and 14.

" The said Grounds are as hereunder :

The Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is contrary to law, in reversing the well considered judgment of the Trial Court, which held that the adoption of the Respondent/Defendant is not valid in law, as the adoption is violative of Section 10(iii) & (iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956, read with Section 5(2) of the said Act.

The Lower Appellate Court erred in law and also on fact in not at all considering the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the Defendant in proper perspective as required under law, which clearly established that the adoption said to have taken place on 22-8-1984, is not according to the custom prevailing in Vysya community to take adoption of a boy after he completes 15 years of age as contemplated under Section 10(4) of the Hindu Adoption