LAWS(PVC)-1915-10-26

ADUSUMILLI KRISHNAYYA Vs. ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMIPATHI

Decided On October 27, 1915
ADUSUMILLI KRISHNAYYA Appellant
V/S
ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMIPATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sue as reversioners of one Narasamma to recover possession of the plaint properties. The last male owner was Venkatasubbiah, a boy of 14 years. He was murdered in 1888. Two brothers of the 2nd and 4th plaintiffs were suspected of this murder. They were convicted by the Sessions Court; but acquitted in appeal. On Venkatasubbiah s death, his mother Narasamma inherited the properties. She died in 1908.

(2.) The 1st defendant is the adopted son of Narasamma. Although the factum of adoption was denied in the Court of First Instance, the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the adoption did in fact take place has not been questioned in appeal. The 2nd defendant is an alienee from the adopted son. She is the daughter of the 3rd defendant and grand daughter of Narasamma. The case for the defendants is that the adoption of the 1st defendant by Narasamma is valid.

(3.) There are questions both of fact and of law to be considered in deciding whether the adoption was validly made. It is clear that Narasamma made strenuous efforts to obtain the permission of her Sapindas to adopt a son. She took the advice of Mr. Pundarikakshadu, a leading Vakil of Masulipatam. As a result of his advice she obtained Ex. I, giving her authority to adopt a boy, from 14 persons who were her sapindas. At this time, there were six persons who were entitled to succeed to the property of her son, in case she did not make an adoption. Of the six only one signed Ex. I. The other signatories to Ex. I, though gnatis, were not the next reversioners. The geneological tree printed in the Judgment shows that counting from the common ancestor Seshadri, almost all of them were heads of the various branches into which Seshadri s descendants had ramified. The main question which was argued related to the sufficiency of the consent obtained under Ex. I. Mr. Rangachariar contended that all the nearest reversioners were asked to give their consent, but that they refused to accede to the request from improper motives.