Chandrappa Vs Gyanamma and Others

1.This appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff. The case has been referred by a Division Bench to this Full Bench in view of certain questions of Hindu Law raised therein. The relationship of the parties will be clear from the following genealogical table:

Note: - Chinnareddi died first and then Vcnkatareddi died.

2. The present suit by Chandrappa is for a declaration of his adoption. He alleged that he was taken in adoption by Anthamma and that the Defendants are denying his adoption, that he is in possession of the Watans of Mali and Kotwal Patelgi and the some lands. In the plaint, it was stated that in 1330 F. Gyanamma. the second Defendant, filed a suit against Defendants 1 and 3 Anthamma and Mallamma, and the 4th Defendant Venkatareddi for the cancellation of a sale deed in respect of some lands. In that suit, there was a compromise between the parties and a compromise decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 15th Isfandar 1332 F. under which the watan of Mali-patelgi was to be given to Defendants 1 and 2 Anthamma and Gyanamma and further they were permitted to adopt a son. The Plaintiff stated that in pursuance of this authority Anthamma Defendant No. 1 took the Plaintiff in adoption after performing the necessary religious ceremonies on 8th Thir 1346 F. The Plaintiff alleged that he was now in possession of the watan and also of the lands from the date of adoption. It was further alleged that the Defendants were now denying the adoption and therefore a decree for a declaration of adoption be passed in his favour.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement admitting the claim while Defendant No. 2 denied the plaint allegations. The suit was contested by the other Defendants also, i.e. Defendants 3 and 4 who while admitting the fact that there was a compromise in the previous suit alleged that the authority to adopt given therein was of ho avail and the widow, that is, Defendant No. 1 Anthamma was not entitled to adopt the Plaintiff under the Hindu Law. It was alleged that Balreddi was illatom adopted son of Chinna Reddi and therefore he was entitled to the whole of the property and as such Mallamma and her son Venkatareddi were entitled to the property.

4. In the trial Court two main Issues were framed one issue related to the factum of adoption and the other, related to the validlty of the adoption Both the lower Courts held that the rectum of adoption had not been establisned. There was an allegation by the Plaintiff In his plaint that the father, Venkatareddi, had authorised Anthamma to adopt the boy and that therefore the adoption was valid. This fact was also hold not to have been proved by both the lower Courts.

5. The question of law as to whether the consist to Anathema''s adoption of the Plaintiff, as mentioned in the compromise deed, was sufficient to validate adoption or not was not fully discussed in their judgments.

6. When the case came up before the Division Bentch the iearned Judges felt that the permla (SIC) regarded as sufficient and valid under Hindu Law. The question to be considered Is whether the permission of the cognates namely Mallamma and Vonkatareddi was suficent under the Hindu Law to validate the adoption of the plantiff. This question was discussed (SIC) by the learned Counsel of the parties and we are Indebted to the learned advocate for the Respondents for the assistance rendered to us on the point. We are of the opinion that the consent of the cognates is not sufficient to validate the adoption of Chandrappa, the Plaintiff. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law as administered in Madras. In that School, the authority to adopt is based upon the text of Vasishta:

Nor let a woman give or accept a son, unless with the assent of her Lord.

According to the Madras School of Hindu Law, this dictum has been interpreted in the case of the absence of the husband as meaning that the widow can adopt with the consent of the hus(SIC) their consent supplying the want of authority, from the husband. In Yagnavalkya Smriti, Chapter III, Verse 85 the text which refers to the capacity of the woman to, act has been given in the following Sanskrit "(SIC) pltha vinnam patihl (SIC) vardhike;

Above gnathayasthesham na swathantriam Kwachisthriyah.

The above text may be rendered in English as follow:

let her father protect a maiden; her lord a married woman, sons in old age; if none of, these other Gnaties (Kinsmen); she Is not fit independence.

7. It is clear so far as the facts of the case are concerned that at the time of the adoption there was neither the father of Gyanamma nor her husband nor her son living. So if she could (SIC) boy in adoption, she could adopt (SIC) consent of Gnaties (kinsmen). We. (SIC) to interpret the, word "Gantries" (SIC) the word "Gnati" includes cog (SIC) agnates. In. the Manu Smrithl, (SIC) has occurred in Chapter 19, verse (SIC) Gnatt has been referred to and also (SIC) is also referred to. Thus,, (SIC) that Gnat 1 does not include Samban (SIC) 3, verse 264 of Manu Smriti (SIC) to the fact that first of all the (SIC) relations, (Gnaties) should be given Hba-(SIC) and then the material relations (Bahdhus) should be fed. Thus It is clear to our mind that Gnati does not-lnclude Bandhusv (SIC)is, .maternal relations or cognates. Again (SIC) Yagnavalkya Smriti Chapter 3, verse 82. the word(SIC)Gnatl and the word Bajadhu have been separately referred to and are contrasted.

8. Thus it is made further clear that GnatI includes only paternal relations and not maternal relations. Gharpuray in his learned Treatis(SIC) "Vyavahar Mayukh" (Edition 1924 page 79; graph 17) is also of the opinion that an adoption by a widow could only be made with the assent of the Gnati in the absence of the father or the husband and in the foot-note of that page "Gnati" has been referred to as a- Sagotra ''Saplnda'' relation as opposed to Sambandh or Bhandhava.

9. In - Kesar Singh Vs. The Secretary of State for India in Council, (A), it was held that there being no agnate relation the consent of the nearest cognate relation'' who would be the presumptly reversioner would be. sufficient for the purposes of adoption. In that case, adoption was made"with the consont given by the husband''s nearest (SIC) man Jagannath Singh.'' The question was also discussed as to whether the cognates assent would bo sufficient for an adoption and the view has been expressed that in regard to consent cognates (SIC) do not appear to stand on a different footing from that of agnates. But in - ''Seahamma v. Venkata Narasimharao AIR 1940 Mad 356 (FB) (B) and in - AIR 1947 124 (Privy Council) (C),the view has beench very clearly expressed that Gnati means Agnates only and it does not include cognates. (sic) 10. We are therefore of the view that the opinion expressed in the two later decisions (SIC) correct and we are Inclined to follow the Privy(SIC) Council ruling mentioned above. In the result we are of the opinion that the consent of the cognates as expressed in the compromise deed is not sufficient and cannot Validate the adoption of the Plaintiff 11. On the facts of the case also, we do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts which have held that the factum of adoption has not been prove In the. result the appeal, fails and is therefore dismissed with costs.