DANAKOTI AMMAL Vs. BALASUNDARA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree declaring an adoption invalid and not binding on the reversioners. The plaintiffs are the reversioners. The first defendant is the widow who adopted. The second defendant is the adopted son; and the third defendant, now deceased, is the sapinda whose consent was essential to the validity of the alleged adoption. The appeal was argued on that assumption.

(2.) The factum of the adoption is not denied and the question we have to consider is, is the adoption valid in law? It is impeached on various grounds in paragraph 14 of the plaint. It is said that "the consent of the third defendant was procured corruptly and improperly by paying him a bribe of... one thousand rupees." It is also said that "the consent of the third defendant was further procured by representing to him falsely that the first defendant had already authority from her son."

(3.) Those are the only two grounds which were seriously argued before us and so I need not refer to the other grounds on which the plaintiffs in their plaint impeach the adoption.