VENNETI SUNDARA RAMA RAO Vs. CHAMARTI SATYANARAYANAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the adoption of defendant 2 by defendant 1 in valid The adoption was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and his decision was confirmed by Rajamannar J. (as he then was). The question received, if I may say so with respect, an exhaustive and careful consideration by the learned Judge in the judgment now under appeal; as I am agreeing with his decision, it is unnecessary to consider the question elaborately in this judgment. As the question raised, however, is of considerable importance and is not covered by any decision, I should like to state, in my own words, the reasons for my conclusion.

(2.) DEFENDANT 1's husband, the late Hari Govindorao, died on 14th November 1937. The plaintiff is his undivided brother. Both of them are the sons of one Veerabadra Raju, who was the son by the first wife of one Govinda Raju. Govinda Raju married a second wife, Bangaramma. It has been found that Govinda Raju separated from his son Veerabadra Raju; and, therefore, the plaintiff and Hari Govinda Rao alone constituted members of an undivided family. Soon after the death of her husband defendant 1 applied to the plaintiff for consent to the adoption and there was an exchange of registered notices in that connection between them. They are Exs. P -2, dated 10th December 1937, D -4 (a) dated 19th December 1937, P -2 (a) dated 10th January 1938, D -5 (a) dated 18th January 1988, P -2 (b) dated 7th February 1938 and D 6 (a) dated 14th February 1938. As the plaintiff refused to give his assent to the adoption, defendant 1 approached Govinda Raju, the paternal grandfather of her husband, and the his consent evidenced by Ex. D -8 dated 7th May 1988, she adopted defendant 2 on 11th May 1938. The factum of adoption though disputed by the plaintiff in the Courts below has now been accepted as true by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE validity of the adoption was questioned in this appeal on two grounds; first, that the widow without the consent of the undivided coparcener, the plaintiff, could not make a valid adoption even if he had improperly refused to give his assent to the adoption; and that, in any event even if the refusal was improper, she was not entitled to travel outside the undivided family and seek the assent of a divided sapinda to justify the adoption, Secondly, that the refusal by the plaintiff was proper and was justified. On the first of these questions there is no decision which has considered the question and answered it one way or the other; and the question was expressly left open in Cheilathammal v. Kalitheertha Pillai, I L. R. (1943) Mad. 107 : A. I R. 1942 Mad. 606.