(1.) The question in this appeal is of the validity of the adoption of the second appellant by the first appellant. That a form of adoption was gone through may be assumed; but the first respondent has obtained the decree appealed against, which declares the nullity of that adoption, on the ground that the first appellant, who is the widow, had not the requisite consent of her deceased husband or of his kinsmen.
(2.) The suit was brought in the District Court of Kistna; and, in that Court, was dismissed with costs. This decree was reversed with costs by the High Court of Madras, on 18 February 1903.
(3.) The deceased Ramayya was a Brahman and was separate in estate from his kinsmen. Ho died without issue in 1881; and his widow, the first appellant, succeeded to his property. The respondents, who are cousins of the deceased, are the nearest reversionary heirs to the estate. They are divided brothers, the second respondent being the elder and they are the nearest kinsmen of the deceased. The second respondent, before the alleged adoption, executed a deed purporting to authorise it and certain remoter kinsmen also signed this deed. The first respondent was not asked for his consent and never gave it. The alleged adoption took place on 20 April 1900.