A widow has the right to adopt to herself under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and such adoption is valid if made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Judgement

R.N. MISRA, J. :- The plaintiffs are in appeal against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur dismissing their suit for possession and mesne profits. The plaintiffs laid claim on the footing that they were reversioners. The genealogy appended below shows the mutual relationship.

The four brothers Bhavanna, Gangadhar, Pandayya, and Venkayya were admittedly separate. Pandayya died in 1925. His adopted son Rajgopalam had predeceased him leaving behind a widow Sundaramma who died on 15-7-1965 Rajgopalam's son Adinarayanna died in 1928. He had left a widow Satyamma who lived up to 1943. The present dispute is in relation to properties of Pandayya Subudhi.

Venkayya left behind two sons Nilakantham and Rajgopalam. Rajgopalam had been taken in adoption by Pandayya. The two sons of Nilakantham are the plaintiffs. Gangadhar's branch became extinct. Defendants 3 and 4 are the grandsons of Bhavanna. Sundaramma adopted defendant No. 1 on 17-3-1965 and acknowledged the adoption by a deed dated 20th of March, 1965 (Ext. B) and conveyed valuable properties to the first defendant. On 15th of March, 1965 she made a registered deed of settlement in favour of the second defendant who happens to be the mother of the first defendant conveying properties to her. The plaintiffs contend that there has been no valid adoption and Sundaramma had no right to adopt. It is also contended that Sundaramma had no right to alienate the property of Adinarayanna, the last male holder. Defendants 3 and 4 supported the plaintiffs. The real contest came from defendants 1 and 2. According to the contesting defendants, the adoption was valid. Sundaramma had the right to adopt and as a matter of fact, defendant No. 1 was taken in adoption in accordance with law. By registered agreement dated 31-7-1934 filed in O. P. No. 30 of 1934 (the pauper proceedings), Sundaramma had received the properties upon the death of Satyamma and she became full owner under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied.

2. The learned trial Judge upheld the adoption both in fact and in law. He found that Sundaramma had got absolute title to the property under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

3. Mr. Murty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants contends that Sundaramma made the adoption to her husband and not to herself. Her right to take in adoption to her husband under the general Hindu law had terminated long before and had vested in Satyamma, her daughter-in-law and could not revive again. In support of such proposition of his, he relies upon a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurunath v. Kamalabai, AIR 1955 SC 206. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act authorises a widow to adopt for herself and when such adoption takes place, as decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court (See Sawan Ram v. Mst. Kalawanti, AIR 1967 SC 1761), the adopted child is also taken to have been adopted to her husband. But the widow is not entitled to adopt to her husband in law. Section 4 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act saves the old shastric law relating to the widow's right to adopt, but Sundaramma had no such right, it having got extinguished. Accordingly the adoption is bad.

4. The main point for determination is as to whether Sundaramma made the adoption to herself or to her deceased husband. The adoption in question is subsequent to 1956 and is, therefore, governed by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. There is no dispute that the widow has a statutory right to adopt. Mr. Murty does not dispute that the adoption made by the widow would be to her husband (see AIR 1967 SC 1761). If the adoption is to herself, it must be taken to be in terms of the statute and its validity would be no more open to dispute. Section 5 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides :-

"(1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordanc