This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 22nd April, 1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, dated 31st January, 1939.

The plaintiffs are the appellants before the Board. The appeal arises out of a suit to set aside an adoption. The following genealogical table shows the relationship of the persons concerned in the appeal:

The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law as administered in the Andhra country, in the Madras Presidency. Moparthi Venkayya, their common ancestor, had two sons, Perayya and Pitchayya. Pitchayya was divided from Perayya. The respondents are the descendants of Perayya while the appel-ants are the descendants of Pitchayya. Pitchayya, who had three wives, died in 1884, leaving surviving him a widow Pullamma and a daughter by his first wife, Punnamma (predeceased) who has two sons-the appellants before the Board. On 22nd March, 1937, Pullamma adopted Chenchuramayya (3rd defendant, Respondent No. 1). Her husband had not given her power to adopt. Before the adoption she had obtained consent to the adoption of all her husband’s nearest agnates, namely, Rangayya (1st defendant, Respondent No. 2), Ramasubbayya (4th defendant, Respondent No. 4), and Perayya, since deceased. On 12th April, 1937, Pullamma executed a will which recited that Chenchuramayya was her adopted son and bequeathed to him all her own property (Stridhan) and the property which passed to her on her husband’s death. No question arises in this appeal with respect to the will which has been found to be valid. On 19th June, 1937, Pullamma died.

On 14th July, 1937, the appellants instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming the properties as the next reversioners, alleging that the adoption of the first respondent was not true and that, even if true, it was invalid as their consent to the adoption had not been obtained before it was made. The contesting defendant denied these allegations and stated that the adoption is valid as it was made by Pullamma after obtaining the permission of her husband’s nearest agnates.

The Subordinate Judge found that the adoption of the first respondent was not proved to have been made; that even if true, it was not valid as it was not made bona fide but to spite the appellants and divert the succession from them and that the assent of the appellants which was necessary to make it valid had not been obtained. . The learned Judges of the High Court held that the adoption was proved. As regards the validity of the adoption, they held it was valid as it was conceded before them that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in Seshamma v. Narasimha Rao1an adoption to which the consent of the agnatic relations alone has been obtained is valid. In that case it was held that

"In the Madras Presidency, where a Hindu dies leaving a widow, divided agnates, and daughter’s sons, without giving his widow power to adopt and the widow makes an adoption, it is valid if she has obtained the consent of the divided agnates: she is not bound to consult daughters’ sons ‘as well though they may be of age."

Their Lordships may state that as the findings of the Courts below regarding the alleged assent of the appellants were indefinite and not clear, and the "evidence in the case made it doubtful whether the appellants were even consulted, the appeal was argued on the assumption that it was held by the High Court that relying on the Full Bench decision to make the adoption valid it was not necessary to consult the daughter’s sons (appellants) provided the adoption was otherwise valid.

Two questions arise for determination in this appeal: (1) whether, in fact the first respondent was adopted as a son to Pitchayya by his widow Pullamma and (2) if the adoption, in fact, took place, whether according to the Mitakshara School of Hindu law as administered in the Andhra country an