The appellant as a rever sioner was, therefore, entitled during the life time of Veeravva to bring the present suit to obtain a declaration that the adoption of the second defendant was invalid.
N. Rajagopala Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri, for the respondents.
55 of 1946, arising out of the judgment and decree dated November 26, 1945, of the Court of the District Judge of Bellary in Original Suit No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Chaudhury for B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellant.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1949, of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
The High Court did number allow companypensatory companyts granted by the District Judge, number did it agree with his finding that the appellant had failed to prove the relationship he had propounded and that lie was not a reversioner at all, far less the nearest reversioner.
In the opinion of the High Court, the appellant was a relative and a reversioner, though he had number proved that he was the nearest reversioner alive at the time the appeal was heard and that he need number prove this until he actually sought to recover possession of the property after Veeravvas death.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J. This appeal is before us on a certificate granted by the High Court as according to that Court a substantial question of law arose in the case which was stated by it to be Is the adoption of the second defendant invalid, as the approval or companysent of the five trustees mentioned in paragraph 14 of the will of Kari Veerappa, Exbt.
1 1940 F.C.R. 84.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
December 19.
120 of 1955.
The question raised by the preliminary objection taken by the respondents must be companysidered an the assumption that the adoption of the second defendant was invalid.
His appeal was dismissed and the decision of the District Judge was substantially affirmed.
Section 14 of the Act states 14 1 Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the companymencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and number as a limited owner.
The Act did number enlarge her power of adoption and did number render an invalid adoption made by her immune from attack by the reversioners during her life time.
The suit filed by the appellant was heard by the District Judge of Bellary who dismissed it.
Hence the present appeal arising out of that suit must also fail.
39 of 1943.
The act of Veeravva in the present case was to bring in a stranger.
The appellant appealed to the High Court of Madras.
