DUGGIRALA VEERANNA Vs. DUGGIRALA SARASIRATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, as the adopted daughter of one Duggirala Seshachelam, a dancing woman of the prostitute class, sued to recover possession of the plaint properties from defendants 1 to 3 and their tenants defendants 4 and 5, alleging that defendants 1 to 3 were let into possession as her tenants under a oral lease. The trial Court found that the oral lease was not true and that the adoption, though true, was invalid, as it was intended for bringing up the plaintiff as a prostitute. The lower appellate Court agreed with the trial Court in its finding about the oral lease, but held that the adoption was valid as it was made with the object of getting the plaintiff married to the third defendant and gave a decree as sued for; hence this second appeal by defendants 1 to 3.

(2.) The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether the adoption of the plaintiff is valid. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that Seshachalam adopted the plaintiff for the purpose of marrying her to the third defendant and not with the intention of bringing her up to lead the life of a prostitute. It is argued that this finding is vitiated by the fact of the lower appellate Court not attaching due importance to the statement of the plaintiff in the plaint that she was 25 years old and that, if that age is taken as true, it will have to be held that the Gaj jala Pooja or the dedication to the temple was made during the lifetime of Seshachalam and not after her death and that therefore it would be apparent that the object of the adoption was to bring up the plaintiff to lead the life of a prostitute. The lower appellate Court, after referring to the age given in the plaint and discussing the other evidence on the point, concludes in paragraph 11 of its judgment: In this state of the evidence 1 prefer to believe the witnesses examined for the plaintiff who say that the girl's Gajjala Pooja took place after her adoptive mother died.

(3.) In these circumstances we are not prepared to hold that the finding is, in any way, vitiated.