GHANTA CHINA RAMASUBBAYYA Vs. MOPARTHI CHENCHURAMAYYA, MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 22-4- 1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, dated 31-1- 1939. The plaintiffs are the appellants before the Board. The appeal arises out of a suit to set aside an adoption. The following genealogical table shows the relationship of the persons concerned in the appeal :

(2.) The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law as administered in the Andhra country, in the Madras Presidency. Moparthi Venkayya, their common ancestor, had two sons, Perayya and Pitchayya. Pitchayya was divided from Perayya. The respondents are the descendants of Perayya while the appellants are the descendants of Pitchayya. Pitchayya, who had three wives, died in 1884, leaving surviving him a widow Pullamma and a daughter by his first wife, Punnamma (predeceased) who has two sons-the appellants before the Board. On 22-8-1937, Pullamma adopted Chenchuramayya (defendant 3, respondent 1). Her husband band had not given her power to adopt. Before the adoption she had obtained consent to the adoption of all her husband's nearest agnates namely, Rangayya (defendant 1, respondent 2), Ramasubbayya (defendant 4, respondent 4), and Perayya, since deceased. On 12-4-1937, Pullamma executed a will which recited that Chenchuramayya was her adopted son and bequeathed to him all her own property (stridhan) and the property which passed to her on her husband's death. No question arises in this appeal with respect to the will which has been found to be valid. On 19-6-1937, Pullamma died.

(3.) On 14-7-1937, the appellants instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming the properties as the next reversioners, alleging that the adoption of respondent 1 was not true and that, even if true, it was invalid as their consent to the adoption had not been obtained before it was made. The contesting defendant denied these allegations and stated that the adoption is valid as it was made by Pullamma after obtaining the permission of her husband's nearest agnates.