CHINA ANA MUTHUVAYYANGAR Vs. THIRUVANGADAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Court is called upon to decide whether the second respondent is the adopted son of one G. Srinivasa Aiyangar, who died on the 27 February, 1937. The suit was brought by the appellant as the nearest reversioner to the deceased's estate for a declaration that the second respondent had no interest therein, in other words that he had not been adopted to Srinivasa Aiyangar. The Subordinate Judge held that during the life time of Srinivasa Aiyangar the natural father of the second respondent had agreed to give his son to him in adoption and that Srinivasa Aiyangar took the boy with that intention. Therefore the condition imposed by Hindu law that there should be a giving and a taking had been fulfilled during the life time of the adoptive father. It is common ground that the datta homan ceremony was performed by Srinivasa Aiyangar's widow, the first respondent, on the 10th March, 1937, that is twelve days, after the death of her husband. In these circumstances the Subordinate Judge considered that the second respondent had been lawfully adopted to Srinivasa Aiyangar. He also held that the deceased had given his widow oral authority to adopt and further that the authority could be implied from the surrounding circumstances. The widow claimed that she had received authority under a will executed by her husband, but the Subordinate Judge refused to accept the document as being a valid will.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant it has been conceded that if there was a giving and a taking of the boy during the life time of Srinivasa Aiyangar his widow would have the right of completing the adoption by the performance of the datta homam ceremony after his death. That this is so is to be gathered from the decision of this Court in Seetharamamma v. Surayanarayana .

(3.) It is common ground that the boy left the house of his natural father six years before Srinivasa Aiyangar's death, and that during the whole of this period he lived with Srinivasa Aiyangar and his wife who treated him as a son in every respect. Learned Counsel for the appellant accepts it as being true that Srinivasa Aiyangar throughout had the intention of adopting the second respondent and that the reason why the adoption, ceremony was postponed was that he desired it to take place when the boy was of more mature age and therefore not so likely to fall into pollution. There is evidence that Srinivasa Aiyangar intended the adoption to take place after the expiry of the year Dhatu which came to an end in April, 1937. All are agreed that the year Dhatu is looked upon as an unfortunate period because in that year of the last cycle there was a terrible famine in this Province. It may be taken that it was the intention of Srinivasa Aiyangar to perform the datta homam ceremony after the year Dhatu had expired. Death prevented-him carrying out his intention.