A married Hindu female has no capacity to adopt even with the consent of her husband under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

K. J. SENGUPTA, J. :- By this appeal the appellant Malati has assailed the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge whereby and whereunder appellant's application for grant of letters of administration as well as that of one Basanti Bagchi since deceased, under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have been dismissed. During pendency of the application of Basanti she died and in her place and stead one Jayanti Sanyal was substituted. The said Jayanti Sanyal's heirs and legal representatives, did not prefer any appeal against this judgment. As such, the question in this appeal is as to whether the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant rightly or wrongly.

2. The case before he learned trial Judge made out by the appellant in her separate application was that she was an adopted daughter of one Tripti Roy Chowdhury, since deceased. On the death of Tripti, as her adopted daughter, Malati had become the sole heiress and legal representative of all her estate and effects. The said Basanti was the sister of Tripti Roy Chowdhury's husband, Bimalakanta Roy Chowdhury who predeceased her. The said Roy Chowdhury couple was issueless and at the time of death of Tripti there has been no heir and heiress under sub-section 1(a) of Section 15 read with Section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The contesting defendants viz. Sudhirindranath Majumdar and others who appeared before the Learned Court below were claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives under Clause (b) of Section 15(1) of the said Act.

3. The learned trial Judge after having appreciated and considered the oral and documentary evidence held that as far as the appellant is concerned she is not the adopted daughter of Tripti. The substituted plaintiff Jayanti Sanyal was held not to have any locus standi to make that application.

4. Since no appeal has been preferred by any person other than Malati we need not go into the aspect of locus standi point as far as Jayanti is concerned. The admitted fact is that Tripti died intestate.

5. As such, two rival persons applied for grant of Letters of Administration to the Learned Trial Judge who held that the appellant failed to prove the factum of adoption.

6. None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice. Mr. Animesh Kanti Ghosal, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal, contends that the findings of the Learned Trial Judge on the question of adoption are patently erroneous as the adoption ceremony has been proved by the priest who conducted the ritual. It is proved without any shadow of doubt as there has been no cross-examination on this point that the natural parents of Malati handed over their daughter physically to Tripti in the presence of the priest and in presence of her husband. That apart, other persons were also present there. It has been proved that at the time of adoption, Malati was about 2 years old. An independent person has also come forward to prove the factum of the adoption ceremony. After such adoption, Malati was brought up by Tripti and everywhere the said deceased lady accepted and acknowledged Malati being her daughter. In the school records also she had declared herself to be the mother of Malati. After her death, Malati lit the funeral pyre and subsequently performed Shradh ceremony. Now she has been looking after the estates and properties left behind by the deceased lady. He submits that on the face of the overwhelming evidence the learned trial Judge ought not to have held that there has been no adoption. According to him, the aforesaid facts and circumstances can be said to be in complete and absolute compliance of the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter 56 Act' in short).

7. Mr. Ghosal submits that Tripti adopted Malati in the presence of her husband. Therefore, it can be said that this adoption took place actually for and on behalf of her husband as he did not raise any objection and his co