GHANTA CHINA RAMASUBBAYYA Vs. MOPARTHI CHENCHURAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated April 22,1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, dated January 31,1939. 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: Moparthi Venkayya. : ______________________:______________________________ : : Perayyapitchayya : (wife pullamma, died____________:___________ June 19, 1937: : (Daughter by avenkayya Punnayyaprevious wife) (died) (died)Punnamma (m. : : Gantha pitchaya Rangayya : : (1st Defendant) __________________ : 2nd Respondent: : : : : Ramasubbayya Perayya : : 4th Defendant) (died ). : : 4th Respondent : _____________:__________ : : : : Ramasubbayyarangayya: (Ghanta) (Ghanta)___:______________________ 1st Plff.)2nd Plaintiff) : : 1st appellant2nd Appellantpunnayya Chenehuramayya (2nd Defendant) (3rd Defendant) 3rd respondent. 1st Respondent.

(2.) 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 appellants 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 sonsthe appellants before the Board. On March 22, 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 (defendant No.1, respondent No.2 ). Ramasubbayya, (defendant No.4, respondent No.4), and Perayya, since deceased. On April 12, 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 June 19, 1937, Pullamma died.

(3.) TWO questions arise for determination in this appeal: (1) whether, in fact, respondent No.1 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 adoption made by a Hindu widow with the consent of her husband's nearest agnates is rendered invalid if she has not consulted her daughter's sons before the adoption was made; or, in other words, to make the adoption valid is it necessary that the daughter's sons should be consulted? The first question is one of fact; the second is one of law and involves the argument that the full bench decision of the Madras High Court above referred to, is incorrect. Their Lordships will deal with the above questions in order.