MINOR NAGAMMAL Vs. SANKARAPPA NAIDU ALIAS MUTHALAGIRI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, relates to the succession to the properties of one Muthukrishna Naidu who died a minor possessed of the suit properties. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sisters. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest heir to the deceased as he is the adopted son of Pappi Naidu who was the brother of the deceased's paternal grandfather. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Pappi Naidu and that the adoption is also legal and valid. If these findings are correct, there is no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the properties in question in preference to defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) The only question argued in this second appeal relates to the validity of the plaintiff's adoption. The circumstances in which the plaintiff was taken in adoption have been set forth in the registered deed of adoption Ex. A, executed by Pappi Naidu. It is recited in that deed that the adoption was necessitated by reason of his two aurasa sons being lepers from birth. It is stated that, as both the natural born sons were suffering from leprosy for over 10 or 12 years and as he despaired of having any lineal descendant even from his sons to perpetuate the lineage, he had recourse to adoption. That deed is attested by both the sons. It is argued that the recital in Ex. A is not legally admissible in evidence in the present case. The fact that the two sons of Pappi Naidu were suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy at the time of the aforesaid adoption is a relevant fact for deciding in this case whether that adoption is valid or not. It seems to me that Section 32, Clause (7) of the Indian Evidence Act may apply. That clause makes a statement contained in any deed, will or other document which relates to any such transaction as is mentioned in Section 13, Clause (a) of the Act admissible in evidence. Ex. A relates to the transaction of plaintiff's adoption whereby his alleged right has been created. The statement contained in Ex. A as the basic ground for the adoption is therefore admissible in evidence. Moreover, the two sons of Pappi Naidu having attested that deed, they may be deemed to have acquiesced in the truth of that statement which is against their pecuniary interest. That being so, it may even be admissible under Clause (3) of Section 32. There is, however, other evidence also in proof of the leprosy of the sons of Pappi Naidu. It is clear from Exs. D and E, the extracts from the death register relating to those two sons, that they died of leprosy. P.W. 2 also says that they were suffering from ulcerous leprosy and had no chance of getting any issue. The finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the two sons of Pappi Naidu were suffering from an incurable form of leprosy seems to me to be unassailable and it must be accepted as correct.

(3.) There is no doubt that these two sons were disqualified for inheritance on account of their having been afflicted with such a virulent form of leprosy. According to the text of Manu, Eunuchs and outcastes, persons born blind or deaf, the dumb and such as have lost the use of a limb, are excluded from heritage.