M. Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This appeal was directed to be posted before a Bench of three Judges, as it was thought it would become necessary to examine conflicting decisions on the points raised.

2. The facts have been fully and lucidly set out by Mr. Ramappa in his judgment and we shall therefore refer only to such of them as have an immediate bearing on the questions at issue. There were three brothers Audinarayana, Venkatasubbayya and Subbaroya. Venkatasubbayya died in 1926 and his minor son is the plaintiff. The second defendant is the widow of Subbaroya, who died in 1931. Audinarayana, the surviving brother is the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on the strength of the first defendants consent, which he attacked as being fraudulent and corrupt, the second defendant proposed to take in adoption, a boy by name Radhakrishna, her brothers son, and the suit was brought for a declaration that the consent was invalid and for an injunction restraining the widow from making the intended adoption.

3. We must at the outset state that in the lower Court it was objected on behalf of the defence, that a suit such as the present, asking for a declaration of the