Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C J - (1.)This appeal arises out of an interpleader suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vizagapatam. The plaintiff is the receiver of the zamindari properties of one Venkata Simhadri Raju, who has throughout the suit been referred to as " Chinna Babu," the name by which he was generally known. Chinna Babu, who was a member of a Kshatriya family, died of small- pox at the village of Annamrajupeta in the Vizagapatam district, according to the first defendant at noon of the 12 March, 1934, and according to the second and third defendants on the night of the nth March, 1934. Chinna Babu was possessed of properties worth some 30 lakhs of rupees. The first defendant claimed to be his heir as the adopted son of Chinna Babu's brother, Pedda Babu, who died on the 13 August, 1933. Pedda Babu was survived by his widow, Rajeswaramma, to whom he gave by a will an authority to adopt a son. The first defendant alleges that he was adopted by Rajeswaramma on the morning of the 11 th March, 1934. If this is true, he is the heir of Chinna Babu. The second and third defendants are the paternal uncles of Chinna Babu and if the first defendant was not adopted to Pedda Babu, they are the heirs. They denied that the first defendant had been adopted and the rival claims led to the filing of this suit by the receiver of Chinna Babu's estate. The second and third defendants not only denied the factum of the adoption, but they maintained that even if there had been a giving and a taking and all the necessary formalities complied with, the adoption would be invalid because the first defendant's natural mother Chittamma was a member of the same gotra as Pedda Babu and it had been laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Minakshi V/s. Ramanada (1888) I.L.R. 11 Mad. 49 (F.B.) that under the Hindu law there can be no valid adoption unless a legal marriage is possible between the person for whom the adoption is made and the mother of the boy who is adopted, in her maiden state. While not questioning the validity of this rule, the first defendant contended that its application had been restricted by the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagwansingh V/s. Bhagwan Singh (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 153 : I.L.R. 21 All. 412 (P.C.) and that in any event custom had avoided its application.
(2.)The learned Subordinate Judge held in favour of the first defendant on the question of the factum of adoption and also held that the rule stated in Minakshi V/s. Ramanada (1888) I.L.R. 11 Mad. 49 (F.B.) had been set at nought by custom in Southern India. Consequently he held that the first defendant was the rightful heir to the estate and passed a decree in his favour. The second and third defendants have appealed. [After discussing the facts, their Lordships proceeded.]
(3.)Agreeing with the trial Court we hold that the first defendant was adopted by Rajeswaramma to her deceased husband on the morning of the nth March, 1934, and that all the requisite formalities were carried out.