MANDAVILLI SEETHARAMAMMA Vs. ATTIVILLI SURYANARAYANA, LATE A MINOR, BY FATHER AND GUARDIAN ATTIVILLI VENKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my brother Venkatasubba Rao, J. I will add a few reasons for agreeing with it.

(2.) In the first place I agree with him in thinking that the phrase " express authority of the husband " so often used in decisions means nothing more than an affirmative indication enabling the widow to adopt, which can be traced to the mind of the husband. The word " express " is used in opposition to the state of the law in Bombay where non-forbidding of adoption by the widow is taken as equivalent to authorisation. In Sri Virada Pratapa Raghunada Deo V/s. Sri Brozo Kishoro Patta Deo (1876) I.L.R. I M 69 (P C) we have got the words " express authority" in two places at page 77, and at page 78 "express permission". The Judicial Committee then referred to Justice Holloway's opinion in the Ramnad case and to the manner in which it was dealt with by the Judicial Committee. They said: It pointed out that on the question--who are the kinsmen whose assent will supply the want of a positive permission from the husband, etc.

(3.) Thus it is clear that the word " express " is not used in opposition to the word " implied " and an authority can be implied from the facts of a particular case. In Subbarayar V/s. Subbammal (1898) I.L.R. 21 M 497 at 502 their Lordships say In the circumstances of the case the direction in the will most clearly implied that datta homam should precede the upanayanam.