GANESAN MINOR BY GUARDIAN Vs. MGANAPATHY IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit by the reversioners of one Venkatarama Iyer for recovery of his estate and the question for decision is whether the adoption of the minor first appellant by Venkatarama Iyer's widow Naravani Ammal is valid.

(2.) Venkatarama Iyer died without issue on 8 February 1925, leaving a resistered will, Ex D-1, dated 24 November, 1924, and Narayani Ammal adopted a boy named Nataraja on 19 February, 1925 under the authority conferred on her by the will. He died a bachelor at the age of i7 years on 4 September, 1942, and Narayani Ammal adopted the first appellant on 15 September 1944. She died three days later and the suit was filed soon after on the ground that the will gave no authority to make the second adoption.

(3.) The will is in Tamil and the agreed translation is as follows: As I am now weak in my body and as I have no issue the undermentioned properties worth about Rs. 4, 000 shall be enjoyed by me so long as I am alive and after my lifetime my wife Narayani Ammal shall take with absolute rights. I am contemplating an adoption during my lifetime in order to ensure spiritual benefit for myself in after-life and if I succeed in obtaining the boy to my satisfaction I myself will make an adoption. If such an adoption is made and if after my lifetime there is disunity between my wife and the adopted boy my wife is to enjoy for her life a moiety, viz., 75 cents, in 1 acre 50 cents of S. No. 87/2. If I fail to make an adoption during my lifetime as aforesaid, my wife should adopt a boy who seems satisfactory to herself as aforesaid within one year of my death. If she fails to make such an adoption she is to take all the above properties absolutely with all rights of alienation, etc. The reversioners claimed that the authority to adopt was exhausted by the first adoption and even otherwise the second adoption was invalid as it was made more than a year after the death of the husband. The District Munsiff held against the reversioners on both the points and dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge agreed with the District Munsiff on the first question, but held that the second adoption was invalid because it was made more than a year after the death of the testator. He decreed the suit and hence this second appeal.