VENNETI SUNDARA RAMA RAO Vs. CHAMARTI SATYANARAYANAMURTI BEING MINOR BY NATURAL FATHER AND GUARDIAN CHAMARTI BULLI VENKATARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant is valid. The adoption was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and his decision was confirmed by Rajamannar, J. (as he then was). The question, received, if I may say so with respect, an exhaustive and careful consideration, by the learned Judge in the judgment now under appeal and as I am agreeing with his decision, it is unnecessary to consider the question elaborately in this judgment. As the question raised, however, is of considerable importance and is not covered by any decision, I should like to state, in my own wprds, the reasons for my conclusion.

(2.) The first defendant's husband, the late Hari Govindarao, died on the 14 of November, 1937. The plaintiff is his undivided brother. Both of them are the sons of one Veerabadra Raju, who was the son by the first wife of one Govinda Raju. Govinda Raju married a second wife Bangaramma. It has been found that Govinda Raju separated from his son Veerabadra Raju; and, therefore, the plaintiff and Hari Govinda Rao alone constituted members of an undivided family. Soon after the death of her husband the first defendant applied to the plaintiff for consent to the adoption and there was an exchange of registered notices in that connection between them. They are Exhibits P-2, dated 10 December, 1937, D-4 (a), dated 19th December, 1937, P-2 (a), dated 10 January, 1938, D-5 (a), dated 18 January, 1938, P-2 (b), dated 7 February, 1938 and D-6(a), dated 14th. February, 1938. As the plaintiff refused to give his assent to the adoption, the first defendant approached Govinda Raju, the paternal grandfather of her husband, and with his consent evidenced by Exhibit D-8, dated 7 May, 1938, she adopted, the second defendant on nth May, 1938. The factum of adoption though disputed by the plaintiff in the courts below has now been accepted as true by the plaintiff.

(3.) He instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises on 5 August, 1938, for a declaration that the alleged adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant is not true and valid in law. He succeeded in the trial court, but that decision was reversed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal and was confirmed in second appeal by this Court. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the decision in the second appeal. The validity of the adoption was questioned in this appeal on two grounds first, that the widow without the consent of the undivided coparcener, the plaintiff, could not make a valid adoption even if he had improperly refused to give his assent to the adoption, and that, in any event, even if the refusal was improper, she was not entitled to travel outside, the undivided family and seek the assent of a divided sapinda to justify the adoption. Secondly, that the refuasl by the plaintiff was proper and was justified. On the first of these questions there is no decision which has considered the question and answered it one way or the other; and the question. was expressly left open in Chellathammal V/s. Kalitheertha Pillai (1942) 2 M.L.J. 206 : I.L.R. 1943 Mad. 107.