K. VARADAMMA Vs. KANCHI SANKARA RCDDI AND ORS.
LAWS(APH)-1955-7-33
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 12,1955

K. Varadamma Appellant
VERSUS
Kanchi Sankara Rcddi And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAJAH VENKATAPPA NAYANIM BAHADUR V. RANGA RAO [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDRA MAN SINGH V. SANATAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GHANTA CHINA RAMASUBBAYYA VS. MOPARTHI CHENCHURAMAYYA, MINOR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAYYA RAO VS. VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATHI SURYA RAO [REFERRED TO]
AKUTHOTA BYRA GOUDU VS. MUNIAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
ADUSUMILLI KRISTNAYYA VS. ADUSUMILLI LAKSHMIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
VENNETI SUNDARA RAMA RAO VS. CHAMARTI SATYANARAYANAMURTHI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA VS. B T SHANKAR [LAWS(SC)-2001-3-57] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.)THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Viswanatha Sastri, J.
(2.)THE facts are not in dispute. One Kanchi Veeraraghava Reddi died leaving two widows Ammayamma and Varadamma. The senior widow Ammayamma with the consent of her husband's divided Ors. , adopted the Plaintiff on 12th March, 1944. Apprehending that the junior widow and one of the brOrs. of late Veeraraghava Reddi would raise disputes questioning the validity of the adoption, the Plaintiff filed O. S. No. 9 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Chittoor, for a declaration, that he was the validly adopted son of Veeraraghava Reddi and for possession of the properties.
Defendants 1 to 4 are the divided brOrs. of Veerarsfghava' Reddi. The 5th Defendant is the junior widow of Veeraraghava Reddi and Defendants 6 and '7,' are' her daughters. Various defences were of the adoption.

(3.)THE District Munsif and on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the factum and validity of the adoption. The 5th deft preferred a S. A. to the High Court which was disposed of by Viswanatha Sastri, J. The only point raised in the Second Appeal was that the adoption was not valid inasmuch as the senior widow took the Plaintiff in adoption without the consent of the junior widow. The learned Judge held that as the adoption was made with consent of the nearest male sapindas, it was valid, though the consent of the Junior widow, was not taken. In the Letters Patent Appeal tire same contention was raised.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.