PARVATAVA NEMAPPA HAVALDAR Vs. FAKIRNAIK IRANAIK NAIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Parvatava filed Suit No. 180 of 1917 to recover possession of the suit property alleging that it belonged to Nemappa who died in 1917 leaving him surviving the plaintiff his senior widow, defendant No. 2, his junior widow, and defendant No. 4, Kalava, his mother; that defendant No. 2 the junior widow adopted defendant No. 3; and that that adoption was false and invalid. The alleged adopted son has file Suit No. 834 of 1918 asking for a perpetual injunction restraining Kalava, the mother of Nemappa, from obstructing him in the enjoyment of the plaint lands.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the marriage between Parvatava and Nemappa was not proved. Ho also held that the adoption of Adiveppa was proved and valid. If the adoption of Adiveppa is not valid, then the question regarding the marriage of Parwatava and Nemappa becomes of secondary importance, because Kalava, the person principally interested, has given evidence to the effect that the marriage did take place, and as a matter of fact the whole of the evidence with regard to that marriage is all one way.

(3.) Now it is admitted that Nilava, when she adopted Adiveppa, was only twelve and a half years old at the most. The learned Judge has said: "I have given the best consideration to the point and have come to the conclusion that if our High Court has decided that a girl of about fifteen years could validly adopt, it follows that one of twelve and a half years could also validly adopt; because between the two girls, capacity to understand such things cannot be substantially different."