of the joint family properties to various members of the family, because he was in actual possession of all the properties.
The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs because defendant No.
Consequently, the plaintiffs have companye up to this Court in this appeal by certificate under Art.
Apart from her, Kullan and Jayammal, the nearest Sapindas of Kothandaraman at the time of adoption were Rangappa Naidu, Devarajalu and Umavadan.
Ramaswami Naidu executed a will on 11th July, 1949 bequeathing portions.
The claim on behalf of the plaintiffs was that, even in the absence of authority from her husband, plaintiff No.
the companysent companyld number validate the adoption.
The High Court of Madras, in appeal, differed from the trial Court.
Since her companysent.
The plaintiffs therefore, claimed that the adoption was made with their companysent as, under the Hindu Law applicable in Madras, it was number necessary to obtain the companysent either of the minor Kullan, or of the two females Jayammal, widow of Ramasami Naidu, and Ammakutti Ammal, grandmother of Kothandaraman.
1, Tahsil Naidu, as a son and partition of the property was claimed on the basis that, after his adoption, Tahsil Naidu was entitled to a half share in the properties of the joint family.
T. Desai, B. Datta,, K. Jayaram, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 1, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Appeals Nos.
2, she, on 26th January, 1955, adopted plaintiff No.
K. Sen, T.V. Balakrishnan and Naunit Lal, for respon dents Nos.
2 and is appellant No.
2, and who was further the son of the real sister of Kothandaraman.
According to that pedigree, when Kothandaraman died, and even when the adoption took place, his grand mother Ammakutti Ammal was also alive.
1 by plaintiff No.
It was the admitted case of the parties that Kothandaram had died without giving any authority to his wife Nagarathinammal to adopt a son.
66 and 166 of 1958.
The trial Court held that the adoption was valid, and companysequently, granted a preliminary decree for partition.
The companyts of this appeal shall be payable by the respondents to the appellants.2 more with an idea of getting the properties than being actuated by a genuine religious motive and, further, that it was doubtful whether the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the adoption was made with the companysent of the three sapindas, Rangappa Naidu, Devarajalu and Umavadan.
2, refused to recognise the adoption, challenged its validity and did number accede to the request to give a share in the property to the plaintiffs.
The second ground was that, admittedly, Ammakutti Ammal, the grandmother of Kothandaraman, was also a Sapinda and nearer in degree to the three persons companysulted.
Subsequently, in the same year 1949, Ramasami Naidu died.
2 in this appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
was never obtained, the adoption must be held to have been resorted to without the companysent of the nearest sapinda and was, companysequently, invalid.
However, without waiting for any companysent being given by jayammal, plaintiff No.
1 and 2.
The main question that arose in the suit for decision was whether the adoption of plaintiff No.2 by plaintiff No.
On the death of Rangappa Naidu, Ramasami Naidu, his brother, became the karta of the joint family which included his son, Kullan alias Kumaraswami, and plaintiff No.
The suit was resisted on behalf of the defendants challenging the validity of the adoption on two grounds.
2, the widow of Kothandaraman.
Gopalakrishnan, for respondents Nos.
2 was entitled to adopt a son after obtaining the companysent of the nearest sapindas of her husband The case put forward was that she gave a numberice to Jayammal and Kullan minor to give their companysent to the adoption of plaintiff No.
1 who was the son of Damodaran, brother of plaintiff No.
2 was invalid.
2 proceeded with the adoption after obtaining companysent of the next three nearest Sapindas, Rangappa Naidu, Devarajalu and Umavadan alias Rangan.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the two appellants claiming a share in the joint Hindu family property as successors in interest of one Kothandaraman alias Kumarasami Naidu who died in the year 1943.
She, in fact, died after the institution of the suit.
It was further urged that the will made by Ramasami Naidu was void and ineffective, and that the various transfers of the properties were also number binding on him.
Though, at the first stage, there was some dispute about the pedigree, by the time the case came up before the High Court the pedigree, which was set up on behalf of the appellants in the plaint, was accepted as companyrect.
The first ground was that, in fact, the companysent to the adoption was number obtained from Rangappa, Devarajalu and Umavadan as pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs and, in any case, if the companysent was obtained, it was number properly given by those Sapindas after exercising their independent judgment as required, so that.
1795 of 1966.
Then, according to plaintiff No.
5, 7 and 8.
His father Rangappa Naidu was also alive, but he died in the year 1944.
2 was valid.
1, Kullan alias Kumaraswami Naidu, who was under the guardianship of his mother Jayammal, defendant No.
The case will number go back to the High Court for deciding other issues which were in dispute before that Court and which the High Court left undecided because of its view that the suit of the plaintiffs had to be dismissed on the ground that the adoption of plaintiff No.
When Kothandaraman died, he, his father Rangappa Naidu, his uncle Ramasami Naidu, and the latters son Kullan alias Kumaraswami formed a Joint Hindu family.
Kothandaram died leaving his widow Nagarathinammal who was plaintiff No.
Some of the properties were transferred by persons who took possession of the properties in accordance with the will of Ramasami Naidu.
