The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a female child before the passing of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 was not permissible under law. The court emphasized the need to prove the validity of the adoption and the existence of a custom for adopting a female child.

K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in A. S. No. 1187 of 1994 dated 4-3-1999*. The core question raised in this appeal is as to whether the adoption of a female, prior to the passing of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956) is valid under law?

*Reported in (1999) 3 Mad LW 294.

2. One Parameswari alias Ramabai filed a suit in O.S. No. 11 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruvallur for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share, claiming that she was the adopted daughter of Kuppusamy Naicker. The said Kuppusamy Naicker had three wives. His first wife Neelammal died issueless. His second wife, Rajammal, the first defendant also died issuelss. The second defendant is the daughter born to the third wife.

3. The case of the plaintiff's is that she was adopted by Kuppusamy Naicker and Rajammal (the first defendant) as per Hindu rites and customs before the birth of the second defendant. Kuppusamy Naicker had left all the items of the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the second wife of Kuppusamy Naicker died and therefore, the plaintiff made a claim for 1/2 share in the suit properties.

4. The first defendant, in her written statement denied the factum of adoption of the plaintiff by Kuppusamy Naicker. The plaintiff is the daughter of Angammal, younger sister of the first defendant. The father of the plaintiff was leading a wayward life and therefore, the first defendant brought her sister Angammal and kept with her as medical treatment had to be given for her. The marriage of the plaintiff took place with the help of Kuppusamy Naicker and at the request of the plaintiff, she was allowed to stay with her husband to look after the cultivation. But, the plaintiff and her husband became jealous of the income of Kuppusamy Naicker and therefore, they have been asked to leave the village in the year 1974 and that thereafter, the plaintiff and her husband started to live in the village of the plaintiff's husband.

5. Based upon the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issue among other issues :-

"Whether it is correct to say that the plaintiff is the adopted daughter of the deceased Kuppusamy Naicker?"

The trial Court also considered as to whether the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff was proved and was there any custom in the family of the plaintiff for adoption of a female child, and if so, was it proved by the plaintiff.

6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence and the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the validity of the adoption and the evidence tendered by witnesses were contradictory with each other and declined to accept the case of the plaintiff.

7. The trial Court further considered the question whether under Hindu law, a female could be taken on adoption and came to the conclusion that among Hindus, it was not at all possible to adopt a female child, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The trial Court declined to accept the case propounded by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

8. As against the said decree and judgment; the plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court in A.S. No. 1187 of 1984*. Learned single Judge, on an analysis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and also considering the documents Exs. A-3 to 17 came to the conclusion that the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff was proved and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the second defendant has come up on appeal.

Reported in (1999) 3 Mad LW 294.

9. Kuppusamy Naicker was the owner of the suit properties, that he had three wives, that the first defendant is the second wife and the second defendant is the daughter of third wife, are not in dispute. The first wife died prior to the marriage of the second wife. The plaintiff was adopted before the second defendant was born to the third wife. The natu