KANNEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Vs. PUCHA VENKATARAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case there is no dispute about the facts, but two questions of law arise, both of which are of considerable importance.

(2.) Venkata Narasu, a Brahmin landholder in the district of Ganjain in the Madras Presidency, died intestate and without issue on the 6 of February 1861, leaving the second respondent, Venkata Ratnamma his widow and sole heiress, him surviving. Before his death he verbally authorized his wife to adopt to him, and it is found by the learned Judges of the High Court that the authority was "in general terms, requiring her to adopt so as to continue his line, and to provide for his spiritual benefit. He did not indicate any particular person for adoption, either by name or otherwise, and placed no restriction whatever on his wife's discretion.

(3.) Twenty-four years after her husband's death, on the 1 May 1885, the widow adopted a son of one of her sisters, but this child died in February 1886, and twelve years later, on the 10 June 1898, she adopted the first respondent. Prior to making this second adoption she obtained the consent of the elder representatives of two branches of her husband's family. The representatives of two other branches refused their consent, and on the 7 October 1899 brought the present suit to set aside the second adoption, as having been neither authorized by her husband nor made with the consent of his sapindas. Upon these facts, the first question which their Lordships have to determine is whether the authority to adopt given by the husband was exhausted by the first adoption; or whether, on the death of the son first adopted, the authority of the husband survived so as to empower the widow to make a second adoption.