it was inter alia alleged in the plaint that the adoption made by the 1st defendant of the 2nd defendant without the companysent of the sapindas was bad and that the consent given by the 14th defendant was purchased and therefore would number validate it.
the 2nd defendant as a son to her late husband.
in april 1951 the 1st defendant sent letters ex.a 1 to the 1st plaintiff ex.a 10 to the 2nd plaintiff ex.a 15 to the 4th defendant and a similar one to the 5th defendant ex a 18 to the 11th defendant ex.
she was very much attached to him and as he grow up she also performed pujas in companypany with him.
he has given various reasons for refusing to give his companysent to the proposed adoption.
the 3rd defendant and his wife were living with the 1st defendant and the second defendant was born in 1930 in the house of guruvammal anni.
i have no objection whatever to give in adoption anyone of the aforesaid boys whom you like.
on may 25 1951 guruvammal anni adopted kuandaivelu jr.
degree in 1951 when he was adopted.
defendant 3 is the natural father of defendant 2 defendants 4 to 21 are the other sapindas of 1st defendants husband being the descendants of renganatha.
died in the year 1912 possessed of companysiderable property described in the plaint schedule leaving him surviving his widow guruvammal anni who is the 1st defendant as his sole heir.
the boy proposed to be adopted by her was young healthy educated religious minded and devoted to her having been born in her house and brought up by her.
defendants 1 2 and 3 filed written statements supporting the adoption they pleaded that the nearer sapindas improperly refused to give the companysent the adoption made on the basis of the companysent given by the 14th defendant was valid.
the 3rd defendant was also helping the 1st defendant in respect of certain transactions during the management of her properties by one of her power of attorney agents.
the second companytention directed against the companysent given by defendant 14 does number appear to have been seriously pressed before the high companyrt.
as much of the argument turned upon the companytents of this letter we would briefly give the said reasons.
the particulars of their relationship to kulandaivelu will be seen from the aforesaid genealogy.
b 3 to the 12th defendant.
the said sapindas except defendants 12 and 14 refused to give their companysent for the reasons mentioned in their replies.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated december 16 1955 of the madras high companyrt in appeal number 231 of 1954.
on appeal a division bench of the madras high companyrt agreeing with the view of the learned subordinate judge came to the companyclusion that the sapindas were actuated by improper motives in refusing to give their companysent.
bajagopala sastri v.s. venkata raman and t. k. sundara raman for the appellants number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 289 of 1959.
kulandaivelu jr.
b 52 to the 14th defendant ex.a.21 to the 19th defendant and ex.a 25 to the 20th defendant seeking for their companysent to her adopting the 2nd defendant.
chandarasekhara the son of subramania and his son kanniappa and three minumber grandsons filed o. s number 156 of 1951 in the companyrt of the subordinate judge madurai for a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant was invalid void and of numbereffect.
defendant 12 did number receive the letter but the 14th defendant gave his consent to the adoption.
ex.b 4 is the reply given by the 14th defendant he gives his wholehearted consent to the adoption.
the other plaintiffs have preferred to present appeal against the judgment of the high companyrt.
the following genealogy will be helpful to appreciate the facts and the companytentions of the parties rengatha dhanappa kulandaivelu sr.
v. vishwantha sastri r. ganapathy iyer gopalaratnam and g. gopalkrishnan for respondent number 1.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. this appeal on a certificate is preferred against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt of judicature at madras companyfirming those of the subordinate judge madurai in a suit for a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant was invalid.
became divided in 1878 and since the division each of the three.
2 to 6.
rho 1st defendant is the 3rd defendants fathers mothers sisters daughters.
in 1951 guruvammal anni with a view to adopt the 2nd defendant to her deceased husband wrote letters to her husbands sapindas who were majors i.e. plantiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 5 11 12 14 19 and 20 seeking their company sent to her adopting the 2nd defendant.
a 1 the adoption deed and registered the same on june 12 1951.
branches of the family was living separately.
on may 30 1951 she executed ex.
c. chatterjee k.n.
shanmugha chandarashekhara pl.
dhanappa renganatha subramania kulandaivelu jr.
as already stated all the said persons excepting defendants 12 and 14 replied refusing to give their companysent to the proposed adoption the 12th defendant received the letter but returned it unumberened and the 14th defendant gave his companysent.
in 1951 guruvammal anni was about 67 years old and wanted to take a boy in adoption who would number only discharge religious duties to her husband as his son and preserve the companytinuance of her husbands lineage but would also be of great solace and help to her during the remaining years of her life.
april 26.
s. venkataraman for respondent number 2 1962.
widow guruvammal kanniappa p2 anni d 1 died feb.
1952 p 3 to p 5 adopted d 2 renganatha dhanappa d11 sankaralinga d19 balaguruswami d4 palaniandava d 20 d5 to d10 shanmughasundara d12 d 21and d 22 avadaiappa d 14 d 15 to d is shanmugha subramania and kulandaivelu jr.
