Effect of such adoption.

Mishra, J.

This appeal on behalf of the first defendant has arisen out of a proceeding in O.S.No.115 of 1977 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil for declaration of the plaintiff’s title and for recovery of possession of the suit property and other reliefs. The suit property originally belonged to one Andiappa Chettiar. He had two daughters Valliammal and Umayaparvathi. The plaintiff is the son of Valliammal, Umayapar-vathi’s husband Jeevarathinam Chettiar had two wives. The first wife is Umaayaparvathi and the second wife is Iyyin Pillai. The first defendant (appellant) is the son of the ‘second defendant and the second defendant is the son through the abovesaid Iyyin Pillai, the second wife. Andiappa Chettiar executed a Will under which, on his demise, Umayaparvathy got a life estate over the suit property and the vested remainder was left with the plaintiff and his brother Rengaswami, who predeceased him. Umayaparvathi, adopted the first defendant as her son and executed a Will with regard to the suit property in his favour.

2. According to the plaintiff Umayaparvathi was not conrpetent to adopt a son after the death of her husband since her husband Jeevarathinam had another wife Valliammal and through him, sons including the plaintiff. She also had no right except the limited estate that had been given to her in the property to execute a Will. The first defendant, however pleaded that Umayaparvathi validly adopted him by observing all formalities and she was perfectly competent to bequeath the suit property in favour of her adopted son, the first defendant for her life interest got enlarged into an absolute estate.

3. The trial court found that on the date of death of Andiappa Chettiar, the succession opened and Umayaparvathi got only a life interest and as she had got only a life interest since she had no children the contingent interest was enlarged into a vested remainder to Valliammal’s heirs; that as Umayaparvathi had got only a life interest she cannot make a bequest by conveying absolute interest in favour of the first defendant and that the adoption of the first defendant by Umayaparvathy was invalid in law and the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property on the death of Umayaparvathi and the first defendant, the alleged adopted son did not derive any interest over the suit property on the basis of the Will executed by Andiappa Chettiar.

4. In the appeal, A.S.No.804 of 1979, that was brought to this Court, it was contended that the legacy bequeathed in favour of Valliammal’s heirs being contingent on Umayaparvathi having no children and the bequest to the legatee being a contingent interest contingent on Umayaparvathi dying without children succession to the heirs of Valliammal would open only when Umayaparvathi died without children and that even if the bequest to unborn children of Umayaparvathi was void, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and the first defendant being the adopted son of Umayaparvathi was entitled to a half share in the suit property. The learnged Judge has, however, found on both counts against the first defendant/appellant.

5. The findings aforementioned, however, are assailed before us by learned counsel for the appellant for the reason inter alia that the court below has fallen in error in not appreciating the role that the provisions in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, introduced in the field of law of adoption and the fact that once adoption is found valid as a consequence thereof, the first defendant would be entitled to a share in the property along with the plaintiff.

6. Since no serious arguments have been advanced, before us with respect to the finding that the bequest made under Ex.A-1 in favour of the children of Umayaparvathi is void we do not enter into any discussion in this behalf. We do not also advert to the question as to whether the Will which Umayaparvathi executed could not confer absolute interest in favour of