Rajamannar, C.J. — The only question in this appeal is whether the alleged adoption of the plaintiff-appellant to one Peddappa Reddiar by his senior widow, the first defendant, is valid. The suit was filed by him for a declaration that he was, such validly adopted son and for partition of the suit properties. The two defendants were the two widows of Peddappa Reddiar who died on 2nd September 1946. He had no male issue but by the first defendant he had four daughters and there is evidence that the daughters have also sons who were alive at the time of the death of Peddappa Reddiar. The plaintiff is the second son of Appuswami Reddiar the only brother of Peddappa Reddiar, but divided from him. In the plaint it was alleged that Peddappa Reddiar authorised the first defendant, his senior widow to make a adoption. It was further alleged that the widow also obtained the consent of the nearest agnates of her husband, namely, Appuswami Reddiar, his divided brother, and two sons of one Chinna Rami Reddi, the son of the brother of the paternal grandfather of her husband, namely, Gengi Reddi and Erra Nagi Reddi. The consent given by these three agnates was embodied in a registered document, dated 15th June, 1949. The adoption is alleged to have taken place on 17th June, 1949. An adoption deed bearing that date was executed and registered. The first defendant was ex parte. The second defendant who was the sole contesting defendant, the junior widow, denied that Peddappa Reddiar ever gave authority to the first defendant to make an adoption. She definitely stated that her husband was not desirous of adopting either the plaintiff or any other person at any time as he had a number of grandsons by his daughters. She challenged the validity of the consent given by the three agnates including the plaintiff’s father. There was also a plea that the consent given by Gengi Reddi and Erra Nagi Reddi was given with a corrupt motive. She went to the extent of denying altogether the factum of adoption.

The learned Subordinate Judge of Salem who tried the suit, on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him found the factum of adoption was established beyond doubt. That finding has not been challenged before us by the second defendant-respondent. The learned Judge, however, found that the first defendant had not been authorised by her husband to adopt. He went further and held that her husband had specifically prohibited her, the first defendant, from making an adoption. The learned Judge also held that in any event the consent of the sapindas in this case was not sufficient to uphold the validity of the adoption because such consent was obtained by a misrepresentation made to them that the husband had given her the requisite authority to adopt. On those findings the suit was dismissed with the costs of the second defendant. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

Mr. T. M. Krishnaswami Ayyar took us through the entire evidence and challenged the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the validity of the adoption. The first question which falls for decision is whether the first defendant was actually authorised by her husband to make an adoption. It is only an oral authority that is set up. The only direct evidence of the husband having given that authority is that of the first defendant herself. She deposed that even before he fell ill prior to his death, he had expressed his desire to adopt a son and, when he was ill, he expressed his intention to adopt a son and subsequently he said that in case he died without making an adoption, she should adopt a son. According to her, one Masaperumal Reddi, P.W. 7, and her son-in-law, Thammanna Reddi, were present when her husband expressed his desire to adopt a son. Masaperumal Reddi has been examined as P.W. 7 ; but we find it impossible to rely on his evidence. Thammanna Reddi was not examined. The first defendant was, however, compelled to admit that during his illness her husband said that his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document