SURYADEVARA ANNAPURNAMMA Vs. GUNTTA MANIKYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by a daughter against her mother for a declaration that an adoption made by her mother was invalid because the adoption took place while she was living an unchaste life. The mother, the first defendant in the suit, is the widow of one Somabrahmam, who died in the year 1911. He was also survived by a son. The son died two years after his father's death. The deceased left an estate of some jl acres of land and Rs. 2,000, moneys which he had lent out. His widow improved the estate and at the time of the suit it had increased considerably in value. The daughter was married to one Venkatramayya. She and her husband lived with the first defendant, as also did the first defendant's mother. The daughter has a son and it is quite clear that this suit is the result of the mother refusing to adopt her grandson.

(2.) In 1937, the plaintiff and her husband quarrelled with the first defendant with regard to the properties of the estate. They went so far as to turn the first defendant out of her own house. This resulted in the first defendant filing a suit for an injunction restraining them from interfering with her rights. She obtained a decree and by reason of it she regained possession of the house. In consequence, her daughter and her son-in-law had to live elsewhere. It was in 1942, that it was suggested that the first defendant should adopt her grandson. She refused to do this, but on the 14 October, 1942, with the consent of the nearest sapinda, she adopted the son of the third defendant, who died during the pendency of the suit. The third defendant is a sagotra. WJaen it became clear that the first defendant intended to adopt the third defendant's son, the plaintiff caused a letter to be written to her mother in which she accused her of immorality. This letter did not affect the first defendant's decision to" adopt the son of the third defendant and the adoption duly took place. The parties being Sudras, a religious ceremony was not necessary.

(3.) On the 10 November, 1942, that is, within a month of the adoption, the daughter filed a suit. Her case was that her mother had for a long time had immoral relations with the third defendant and that in consequence of her unchastity she was debarred under Hindu Law from adopting a son to her deceased husband. In her charge of immorality against her mother she was supported by her maternal grandmother, her husband and her maternal uncle. The Subordinate Judge considered that in view of this evidence he was compelled to hold that the first defendant had lived an unchaste life; but he went on to hold that her intimacy with the third defendant had ceased twelve months before the adoption and, relying on the judgment of this Court in Viyyamma V/s. Suryaprakasa Rao he held that the adoption was valid. The plaintiff has appealed.