Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellant, Pisapati Venkatacharyulu, is a vaishnava brahman and he has an only daughter who has no male issue. The respondent, Subhadracahryulu, is his paternal uncle's son's son, and the respondent's maternal grandmother and the appellant's mother were daughters of two half-brothers. The respondent's mother died when he was very young, and in 1875 his father gave him to the appellant, who desired to adopt him. The appellant brought away the respondent from his father's house and kept him under his own protection. In 1876 the respondent's father died, but the respondent continued to live in the appellant's house and under his protection. In 1880 the appellant executed a will and mentioned in it his intention to adopt the respondent and to perform his upanayanam on an early-auspicious day. Shortly after the execution of the will the appellant performed the homam prescribed for adoption, adopted the respondent, and invested him with the sacrificial thread. Both lived together as father and son until the 7th January 1881, when the will was registered. Shortly after, the appellant wanted to see the respondent married and chose a girl for the purpose. The respondent's natural elder brother selected a girl from a rich family, instigated the respondent to leave the appellant's house, and got him married. The respondent was then, and is still, a minor. On the 15th July 1881 the appellant brought this suit to obtain a declaration that the adoption is bad in law, and alleged that, at the datta homam, it was the respondent's brother that gave the respondent in adoption, and that one brother was not competent to give away another in adoption. He asserted also that by reason of the relationship between him and the respondent's mother, he could not lawfully marry her when she was a maiden; that the adoption was invalid on this ground too, and that he discovered these defects only after he registered his will. The Subordinate Judge held that, by his own conduct, the appellant was estopped from impugning the adoption; that a marriage between the appellant and the respondent's mother in her maiden state would not be incestuous according to the usage obtaining in the Telugu country, and that the death of the respondent's father prior to the adoption was immaterial inasmuch as the father gave the son in 1875 for the purpose of adoption. It is argued on appeal that the adoption is invalid for the two reasons already mentioned, and that the appellant is entitled to a decree declaring that the adoption is invalid though it was his own act. According to the usage obtaining both in the Telugu and Tamil country, a marriage between a maternal uncle and his niece is not incestuous, although in the Tamil country it is not a highly approved marriage.