HANMAVVA ADIVEPPA SOMRADDI Vs. VENKAPPA GOVINDAPPA KADEMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to have it declared that defendant No 1 had not taken defendant No. 2 in adoption and that if taken, the adoption was invalid, that defendant No 1 was not competent to make alienations which would be valid beyond her lifetime, and that such alienations did not bind her reversioners. A pedigree of the family for the purpose of this suit may be set out as follows :-

(2.) The first defendant Hanmawa adopted a son, who is the second defendant. Chinnawa, defendant No. 6, adopted also a son who is not made a party to the suit. The trial Judge held that the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant was invalid, and as the alienations by defendant No. 1 were not proved to have been for necessity, the plaintiff was entitled to the declarations sought.

(3.) The first defendant contended that the adopted son of Chinnawa was a necessary party to the suit, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to file his suit as he was not the next rever-sioner,