LAWS(PVC)-1917-8-32

SUNKURU SURYANARAYANA ALIAS LAKSHMINARAYANA, BEING A MINOR BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SUNKURU BHIMALA Vs. SUNKURU RAMADOSS

Decided On August 29, 1917
SUNKURU SURYANARAYANA ALIAS LAKSHMINARAYANA, BEING A MINOR BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SUNKURU BHIMALA Appellant
V/S
SUNKURU RAMADOSS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Gurumurthi Subudhi belonging to the Vaisya caste had four sons, three of whom were married and the other was unmarried. All the four sons died during his lifetime, the three married sons leaving behind their widows. In this state of circumstances Gurumurthi adopted a boy for himself the 1st defendant in this suit, and made a will on the 28th June 1909 by which he authorised his three daughters-in-law to adopt a son each. The 2nd plaintiff in this case adopted a son under the authority given to her by Gurumurthi. That boy died. Thereupon she attempted to adopt the 1st plaintiff in this case in November 1911 but was temporarily prevented by injunction from doing so. She subsequently adopted him in 1913.The present suit is brought by the adopted son as 1st plaintiff, and by the adoptive mother as second plaintiff to recover the share of the property bequeathed to the latter s 1 adopted son Gurumurthi. Their allegation is that the 1st defendant gave his consent for adopting the 1st plaintiff, that the boy was selected by the 1st defendant, that the secular ceremony of giving and taking was completed in the presence of the 1st defendant in July 1909, and that the 1st defendant dishonestly prevented the 2nd plaintiff from performing the Dattahomam ceremony.

(2.) The prayer of the plaintiffs is for a declaration that the adoption of the 1st plaintiff is valid and, in the alternative, that in case the plaintiff s adoption is found to be invalid that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to the share mentioned in the settlement of Gurumurthi, as the mother and heir of her first adopted son.

(3.) The defence of the 1st defendant is that he never gave his consent to the adoption and consequently the adoption is invalid. He raises also the plea that notwithstanding the will of Gurumurthi the family remained undivided and that consequently the second plaintiff is not entitled to the share devised to her by his adoptive father.