RAVELLA MANGAMMA Vs. BOLLEPALLI RAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised by this appeal are two viz., (1) Whether the alleged adoption said to have been made by one Subbamma of the third defendant was made at all. (2) Whether, if made, it was made without authority;

(2.) The evidence of the fact of adoption is weak but I am not prepared to differ from the trial Judge's finding that there was an adoption, bearing in mind that the registered deed of authority (Ex. I) probabilizes the story of adoption, it being improbable that the gnatis and the widow would have gone to the trouble of registering a deed of authority and then stopped short without effecting the adoption which need only involve a very simple ceremony involving no expense. It is true that the story told of the adoption describes an elaborate ceremonial adoption, with Brahmins chanting mantrams, and drummers and pipers performing, a form of adoption neither necessary nor usual in the case of Sudras, and I view with suspicion the whole story but my suspicion does not go so far as to prepare me to disagree with the trial Judge's finding of fact on this point.

(3.) There remains however, the question of authority. That there was a deed of authority cannot be, and is not, disputed. It was registered in 1911. The ground of attack is that the gnatis did not give a bona fide authority for the purpose of getting a boy adopted to the deceased - (Subbamma's husband) so that there might be someone to perform the ceremonies for the deceased and protect the inheritance. It is said that the widow and the gnatis entered into this arrangement simply to enable the widow to divide her deceased husband's property amongst various relations and that the case falls within the class of case of which Venkamma V/s. Subrahmaniam (1906) 34 I.A. 22 : I.L.R. 30 Mad. 50 : 17 M.L.J. 114 (P.C.) is an example.