The validity of an adoption by a teen-aged girl depends on whether the conscience of the Court is satisfied that the adoption was a conscious act, that the adoptive mother knew the consequences of that act, and that she was uninfluenced by interested persons.

1. This appeal is filed by one Paryanibai widow of Raghoji whose suit for a declaration that respondent Bajirao was not a validly adopted son of her deceased son Baliram has been dismissed in the trial Court, and that dismissal has been affirmed in the lower appellate Court.

2. The plaintiffs case was that she had a son by name Baliram who died on 19th January 1950. At the time of his death Baliram left two widows. The senior widow, i.e. the one married earlier to him was Mathurabai and the other was one Dhrupatabai. It is an admitted position that Mathurabai was younger to Dhrupatabai, but the age of these two widows of Baliram is a matter of dispute between the parties. Plaintiffs case was that Baliram died issueless and that he had prohibited any adoption being made after his death-Mathurabai who is the senior widow remarried some time in 1953 and so did the other widow Dhrupatabai. There were proceedings for mutation of the field property after the death of Baliram which were contested proceedings. Those proceedings were decided against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that defendant Bajirao who claimed to have been adopted by Mathurabai on 26-6-1950 was not so adopted and, at any rate, the adoption was invalid.

3. The ground on which the adoption was challenged as invalid was that the adoptive mother Mathurabai was of an immature age and had not attained the age of discretion. The age which was stated to have been attained was hardly 12 or 121/2 years at the time of the alleged adoption. On this ground the plaintiff claimed to be the reversionary heir of her deceased son Baliram after having the adoption declared invalid.

4. The only person impleaded as defendant in the suit was the alleged adopted son Gulabrao alias (Bajirao) who was represented by his natural father Deorao. The defendant claimed the status as an adopted son and resisted the suit. With regard to the invalidity of the adoption on account of want of due capacity in Mathurabai, the defendant merely denied that Mathurabai was 12 or 12 1/2 years of age. The defendant stated that the age of Mathurabai was such at which she should make adoption. The defendant also denied that Mathurabai had not attained the age of discretion. In addition the defendant specifically pleaded that at time of his death the deceased Baliram had specifically given authority to adopt, and in pursuance of that direction the adoption was made by his widow.

5. At the trial the plaintiff examined herself and 8 other witnesses. The evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff was mainly directed to prove the alleged prohibition to adopt, as well as the age of the adoptive mother Mathurabai. Plaintiffs witnesses consistently deposed that Mathurabai was about 10 or 12 years of age at the time of the alleged adoption and that she had not attained the necessary age of discretion or understanding. The defendant on the other hand, in addition to certain documentary evidence to which reference will be made later on, examined the photographer who took a photo alleged to have been taken at the time of the adoption, the petition writer who scribed the adoption-deed and one Sitaram who attested the deed of adoption. No other person such as the natural father of the adoptive boy or any other relation of the adoptive mother or the adopted son went into the witness-box.

6. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove prohibition to adopt and that the defendant failed to prove a specific authority to adopt. It found that both the widows of Baliram remarried, Dhrupatabai in 1950 and Mathurabai in 1953. It was found that the defendant was duly proved to have been taken in adoption after necessary ceremonies. As to the capacity of the widow to adopt, it was held as not proved that the widow had not attained the age of discretion to take the boy in adoption. In fact the finding was that Mathurabai was proved to have been 15 years of age on the date of adoption, and