1. The question for decision is whether the 1st plaintiff is the adopted son of the deceased Lakshmipathi Nayanim Varu.

2. Lakshmipathi died about 30 years ago. His widow the 2nd plaintiff adopted the 1st plaintiff on 2-11-1908. The District Judge finds that she failed to obtain the consent of Venkataramana Rao and Venkata Rao, two sapindas of the deceased who were divided from him. He finds further that the 1st defendant who was the undivided brother of the deceased and who admittedly refused to give his consent to the adoption did not withhold it from improper motives. He also holds that the 2nd defendant who gave his consent in writing (Exhibit B) did so probably on account of some misrepresentation and that the 3rd defendant never gave his consent. He was therefore of opinion the adoption was invalid. All these findings are disputed in appeal.

3. In the absence of any authority from her husband the 2nd plaintiff was bound to obtain the consent of sapindas. As her husband died a member of an undivided family, the requisite authority mast be obtained from the member of that undivided family. The question therefore whether she obtained the consent of Venkata Rao and Venkatar