KRISHNAMURTHI AYYAR Vs. KRISHNAMURTHI AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramakrishna Ayyar was a Hindu gentleman in possession of ancestral lands extending to some 135 acres. He was not living joint with any relative, and he was childless. On March 28, 1910, he made a will by which he disposed of his property roughly as follows :- 12 acres in charity; 44 acres to his wife for her life; 45 acres to the son of a distant connection, whom he designated as being his adopted son, the appellant in the present suit, and the rest to persons who were connections, but were in no case within the degrees entitled to maintenance, and who are the respondents in the present suit. After the death of the widow, part of the land which she held for life was to go to the appellant, and part to the respondents. On the same day, the natural father of the appellant executed a deed in the following terms :- The deed of consent for adoption executed on March 23, 1910, in favour of Ramakrishna Ayyar, son of Venkatacbala Ayyar, Brahman, Saivite and Mirasidar, residing in Kunnam, Shiyali taluk by Natesa Ayyar, son of A. Ramaswami Ayyar, Brahman, Saivite and Mirasidar, residing in Kunnam village of the said taluk :- You have this day executed a Will and have alienated your own properties. When you asked me to give you my son Krishnamurthi in adoption subject to the condition that he should take only such properties as were given him by the said Will and be bound by the alienations made thereunder, I consented to it and admitted the alienations made in the said Will, and, in pursuance of the arrangement that Krishnamurthi should take only such of the properties as were left to him thereunder, I have executed this deed of consent for adoption in support of my having this day given the said Krishnamurthi my son in adoption. Immediately thereafter the adoption took place with all due ceremony.

(2.) Ramakrishna Ayyar died in April, 1911, and his wife in June, 1911. The present suit was raised in 1918 by the respondents to obtain possession of the properties left them by the will. It was directed against certain parties who were in possession and were alleged to be holding benami for the appellant and also against the appellant.

(3.) The persons who were holding as alleged eventually renounced all claim to the property. The appellant, through his guardian, alleged that the adoption had taken place before the date of the will, but it was found, in fact, and is not now contested, that the will was executed unico contextu with the deed of consent by the natural father, and that both were executed in view of the adoption which took place subsequently with all due ceremony. It is also admitted that the natural father was a poor man and had two other sons at that time, and has had two subsequently. The sole question in the case is, therefore, whether the will, taken along with the deed of consent, is binding on the appellant so as to cut down what would have been his rights had he been a natural instead of an adopted son.