KANDULAPATI KANAKARATNAM Vs. KANDULAPATI NARASIMHA RAO, BEING MINOR BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND KNAGARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the adoption by a Hindu widow of a son to her deceased husband is invalid when the widow is actuated, not by a sense of religious duty, but by an improper motive.

(2.) On the 8 June, 1931 one Kandulapati Gopalam died leaving two widows, the second respondent and the appellant. The second respondent was the senior widow. On the 20 October, 1931 the second respondent purported to adopt the first respondent and it is not suggested that any of the necessary formalities were ignored. On the 17 December, 1935 the first respondent filed in the Court of the District Judge of West Godavari the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover possession of Gopalam's estate. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore. The first respondent alleged that Gopalam had by will given authority to the second respondent to adopt a son. He also alleged that irrespective of the will the adoption was valid as the nearest sapinda had given his consent. The appellant denied that the will had been executed by the testator and disputed the validity of the consent of the nearest sapinda. The will was not produced, but the Subordinate Judge held that the first respondent had been validly adopted because the second respondent had in fact received the consent of the nearest sapinda, and this is not now disputed. It may be taken for the purposes of the appeal that in adopting the first respondent the second respondent was not actuated by any religious motive and that her object was to prevent the estate falling into the hands of the appellant.

(3.) Two arguments have been advanced on behalf of the appellant. In the first place it is said that a Hindu widow cannot make a valid adoption when she has been prompted by a corrupt motive. In the second place it is said that here the consent of the nearest sapinda cannot be regarded as being a lawful consent because he gave it under the impression that Gopalam had by will directed the second respondent to adopt a son to him. The second contention was not seriously pressed and calls for little comment. The nearest sapinda was Kandulapati Bullivenkayya, the elder brother of Gopalam. He gave evidence and stated that his consent was given independently of any authority received from Gopalam. His statement was believed by the Subordinate Judge and we see no justification for disbelieving it.