Validity of authority to adopt.

The first defendant whose adoption has been declared invalid by the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant before us. The following pedigree explains the relationship between the parties:

Ramaswami Bhattar and Kuppa Bhattar were two brothers. The plaintiff is the grandson of Ramaswami Bhattar. The plaintiff’s father Rangaraja Bhattar died on the 5th March, 1942. Kuppa Bhattar had a son Krishna Bhattar and a daughter Ponnammal, the second defendant. Krishna Bhattar was married to Rukmini Ammal. Krishna Bhattar was born on the 3rd December, 1887, but died on 6th June, 1901. On the date on which he died, he executed what purports to be a will but what was in fact an authority to adopt, a registration copy of which has been marked as Ex. P-3 in the case. At the time of his death, Krishna Bhattar was below 14 years of age. The will was presented for registration after his death by Srirangammal, his mother, on 6th August, 1901. There was an elaborate enquiry after due notice to the parties by the Sub-Registrar, who, however, by his order, dated 30th October, 1901, refused to register it. There was an appeal to the District Registrar, and on 22nd February, 1902, he directed registration of the will as a result of a compromise between the parties. On the 18th March, 1940, by Ex. D-5, there was an attempt to settle the dispute between Rangaraja Bhattar and Rukmini Ammal, and on that date, an unregistered family settlement deed was executed. It is common ground that the terms of that settlement however were not carried into effect and the settlement did not become effective. On the 22nd March, 1940, Rukmini Ammal adopted the first defendant, purporting to act on the authority conferred on her by her husband under the will Ex. P-3. She in her turn executed a will on 12th April, 1940. She died on 17th April, 1940. The father of the plaintiff was alive for about two years and the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the adoption of the first defendant by Rukmini Ammal was invalid and never in fact took place.

In the Court below the genuineness of Ex. P-3 was disputed and it was also contended that Krishna Bhattar was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the deed on 6th June, 1901. The factum of adoption was also denied. The main question, however, on which the controversy, centred was about the validity of the authority conferred by Krishna Bhattar at the time when he was below 14 years of age. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the factum of adoption was established, and that Krishna Bhattar executed Ex. P-3 with a full knowledge of its contents, and that it was genuine. He, however, declared the adoption invalid on the ground that Krishna Bhattar was a minor and was not competent to confer an authority to adopt on his widow. An attempt was made on behalf of the appellant in the Court below to support the adoption on the ground that Rangaraja, as the nearest sapinda then alive, consented to the: adoption; but this attempt failed. In this appeal by the first defendant, the main question argued by Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar, his learned advocate, was that the authority conferred by Krishna Bhattar was valid. He made a faint attempt to support the adoption also on the ground that irrespective of the authority of, Krishna Bhattar, the adoption was valid. The respondents did not challenge before us the findings of fact which were against them. The argument, therefore, proceeded on the ground that the findings of fact of the lower Court regarding the genuineness of Ex. P-3 and the factum of adoption are correct.

We may dispose of the contention that Rangaraja consented to the adoption first as it does not present any difficulty. The unregistered family settlement deed, Ex. D-5 dated 18th March, 1940, was relied on in support of the contention. That document sets out the previous disputes regarding the will and that Rangaraja agreed not to dispute the will in con