SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. VENKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit to obtain a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant? the widow of one Ramayya is invalid on the grounds that the 1 defendants had no authority from her husband to make the adoption, and that the alleged assent of the 3rd defendant alone to the adoption is invalid and insufficient in law. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are divided brothers, being the nearest existing cousins of the deceased Ramayya, who died issueless about 20 years ago, leaving him surviving no undivided member of his family. The 2nd defendant, who is the son of a remote gnati of the deceased, was, shortly before the institution of this suit, adopted by the 1 defendant, who purported to adopt him in pursuance of her husband's oral authority and of the assent of the 3 defendant and some other gnatis. The District Judge disbelieved the evidence as to the oral authority given by the husband, but upheld the adoption on the grounds that, according to the proper construction of the document (Exhibit 111) executed by the 3 defendant signifying his assent to the adoption, his consent was one given independently of the alleged authority of the husband, that such assent was not proved to have been given from corrupt motives, and that the assent of the 3 defendant alone was sufficient in law inasmuch as "it would have been useless for the widow to have sought also the assent of the plaintiff who probably wanted one of his own sons to be adopted by her."

(2.) Notwithstanding the attempt made before us by the respondent's pleader to impugn the finding of the District Judge as to the alleged authority from the husband, we are quite satisfied that his finding is correct and that the oral evidence in support of the alleged authority is altogether untrustworthy. We also agree with the District Judge that the evidence is by no means sufficient to establish that the 3 defendant's assent was procured for a pecuniary consideration.

(3.) The two questions which have been chiefly argued at length before us are (1) whether the 3 defendant's assent is not null and void as having been given on a representation made by the widow that she had her husband's authority to make the adoption and (2) whether the assent of the 3 defendant alone is sufficient in law, either absolutely or under the circumstances of the case.