RAJAH DAMARA KUMARA VENKATAPPA NAYANIM BAHADUR VARU (LATE A MINOR BUT NOW OF FULL AGE) Vs. DAMARA RENGA RAO (LATE A MINOR BUT NOW OF FULL AGE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant in this case bases his claim to succeed to the estate of the late Gangadbara Rama Nayanim on the ground that he was duly adopted by the junior widow with the consent of the sapindas after the senior widow had refused to adopt a boy. The District Judge has found and we agree with him, that no such refusal is proved. On the other hand the evidence shows that the senior widow who left the family house shortly after her husband s death set up almost at once that her husband had authorised her to adopt during his life time. It also appears that two days after the adoption of the plaintiff by the junior widow, and as soon as she heard of it, she went through the form of adopting the defendant purporting to act under the alleged authority from her husband. The District Judge found that this authority had not been proved, but this finding did not affect the result, as he also found that the plaintiff s adoption by the junior widow was invalid on the ground that it was made by her without consulting the senior widow and obtaining her consent, and also because it was made without consulting one of the nearest reversioners of the deceased, and that consequently he had no right to sue.

(2.) The view taken by the District Judge as to the senior widow s consent is in accordance with a subsequent and very recent decision of Sankaran Nair and Spencee, JJ., in Kakerla Chukkamma v. Kakerla Punnamma (1914) 28 M.L.J. 72, where it was held that the senior widow has a preferential right to adopt, and that, so long as such preferential right subsists, the junior widow has no right to adopt. The learned Judges, one of them a Hindu Judge of long experience, based the decision not only on the decisions of the Bombay and Calcutta Courts but also on the preferential right of the senior widow to perform religious acts such as adoption.

(3.) The question which is one of considerable importance and had not previously come before this Court has again been very ably and elaborately argued before us by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar for the appellant and by Mr. T.V. Venkatarama Ayyar for the respondent; and after a careful consideration of their arguments I see no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judges or the grounds on which it was based.