PANDA PATYYA Vs. PANDA VENKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to declare that the sale of the properties, items Nos. 1 to 23 in the Schedule to the plaint, to the 3rd defendant, in execution of the decree in Original Suit No. 329 of 1893 of the Court of the District Munsif of Ongole against one Venkamma, the widow of one Rangayya, is not binding on the plaintiff s reversionary right to these properties. The suit is on the footing that Rangayya was adopted by Ademma, the widow of one Venkatadri, after the death of Venkatadri and of Venkataramayya, Rangayya s brother, whom Venkatadri had himself adopted during his life-time. Venkataramayya died after Venkatadri; and according to the evidence for the plaintiff Lakshminarasu, Rangayya s father, being then the next reversioner and there being no other reversioner in the same degree, gave his son Rangayya in adoption to the widow. The Subordinate Judge has found among other things that this adoption was bad for want of authority, although it was made with the consent of the nearest reversioner. We are unable to agree with this. We think that the circumstances indicate, and we are entitled to presume, that in giving his son to the widow the next reversioner was fully conscious of what he was doing and was mindful of all those considerations which a reversioner, ought to take into account in such circumstances. It must be borne in mind in this case that there is no question that he was in any way actuated by any representation by the widow that her husband had given her authority to adopt. It was not suggested that her husband had given her any authority, but he had shown his desire that his lineage should be continued by himself adopting a son in his life time. No authority has been cited to induce us to hold that a consent given in such circumstances is insufficient.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge, however, has also held that it is not proved that the adoption took place. On a careful consideration of the evidence we are unable to agree with this conclusion. The adoption is said to have taken place in March 1876, and within the next three years we have three registered documents, Exhibits B, C and H, Exhibits H and C being mortgages and Exhibit B, a sale deed, in which Rangayya is spoken of as the adopted son of Venkatadri. Some farfetched suggestion was made that after the death of Venkataramayya, the widow of Venkatadri, because this hoy married her grand-daughter, was anxious to pass him off as an adopted boy when he was not one. But this is an explanation which we are unable to accept. The fact that, while he was merely a boy incapable of defending his own interests, we find he was recognized as adopted son, is strong evidence to show that he was such. He died very soon about, June 1881.

(3.) Before referring to what followed, it is necessary to deal with the position of the 2nd defendant s husband Pichayya, who, it has also been argued for the defendants, had been taken as an illatom son-in-law by Venkatadri at the same time that he adopted Venkataramayya. The Subordinate Judge has disbelieved the three witnesses who purported to speak to this taking in illatom by Venkatadri in his lifetime, and we are unable to say that he was wrong in this conclusion It is very easy for men who have married into a family to set up a claim to a share of the family property on the footing that they have been taken as illatom, son-in law; but such contentions require to be proved by very reliable evidence, as they are claims which is very easy to set up and which apparently there is a great temptation to set up. Now, after the death of Venkatadri, there are three documents, Exhibits XXII, XX (b) and XX (c), on which the defendants rely, as negativing the adoption of Rangayya and also as supporting the illatom claim of Pichayya. After Venkatadri s death Pichayya in 1876 and 1877 got three unregistered bonds, Exhibits XXII, XX (b) and XX (c), executed in his favour for a balance of indebtedness clue to Venkatadri. How he got them is not shown. It may be that he induced some of these debtors to give them to him with a view of his making them evidence in support of his claim to be an illatom son-in-law.