Judgment Case ID: 2736

Judgment:
Appeal No. 1795 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 1	 1962 of the Madras High Court in Appeals Nos. 66 and 166 of 1958. S.T. Desai	 B. Datta		 K. Jayaram	 J.B. Dadachanji	 O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain	 for the appellants. A. K. Sen	 T.V. Balakrishnan 'and Naunit Lal	 for respon dents Nos. 1 and 2. R. Gopalakrishnan	 for respondents Nos. 5	 7 and 8. 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. When Kothandaraman died	 he	 his father Rangappa Naidu	 his uncle Ramasami Naidu	 and the latter 's son Kullan alias Kumaraswami formed a Joint Hindu family. Kothandaram died leaving his widow Nagarathinammal who was plaintiff No. 2 and is appellant No. 2 in this appeal. His father Rangappa Naidu was also alive	 but he died in the year 1944. On the death 'of Rangappa Naidu	 Ramasami Naidu	 his brother	 'became the 'karta ' of the joint family which included his son	 Kullan alias Kumaraswami	 501 and plaintiff No. 2	 the widow of Kothandaraman. Ramaswami Naidu executed a will on 11th July	 1949 bequeathing portions. of the joint family properties to various members of the family	 because he was in actual possession of all the properties. Subsequently	 in the same year 1949	 Ramasami Naidu died. Some of the properties were transferred by persons who took ' possession of the properties in accordance with the will of Ramasami Naidu. Then	 according to plaintiff No. 2	 she	 on 26th January	 1955	 adopted plaintiff No. 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. 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 not binding on him. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs because defendant No. 1	 Kullan alias Kumaraswami Naidu	 who was under the guardianship of his mother Jayammal	 defendant No. 2	 refused to recognise the adoption	 challenged its validity and did not accede to the request to give a share in the property to the plaintiffs. The main question that arose in the suit for decision was whether the adoption of plaintiff No.2 by plaintiff No. 2 was valid. It was the admitted case of the parties that Kothandaram had died without giving any authority to his wife Nagarathinammal to adopt a son. The claim on behalf of the plaintiffs was that	 even in the absence of authority from her husband	 plaintiff No. 2 was entitled to adopt a son after obtaining the consent of the nearest sapindas of her husband The case put forward was that she gave a notice to Jayammal and Kullan minor to give their consent to the adoption of plaintiff No. 1 who was the son of Damodaran	 brother of plaintiff No. 2	 and who was further the son of the real sister of Kothandaraman. However	 without waiting for any consent being given by jayammal	 plaintiff No. 2 proceeded with the adoption after obtaining consent of the next three nearest Sapindas	 Rangappa Naidu	 Devarajalu and Umavadan alias Rangan. 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 correct. According to that pedigree	 when Kothandaraman died	 and even when the adoption took place	 his grand mother Ammakutti Ammal was also alive. She	 in fact	 died after the institution of the suit. Apart from her	 Kullan and Jayammal	 the nearest Sapindas of Kothandaraman at the time of adoption were Rangappa Naidu	 Devarajalu and Umavadan. The plaintiffs therefore	 claimed that the adoption was made with their consent as	 under the Hindu Law applicable in Madras	 it was not necessary to obtain the consent: 502 either of the minor Kullan	 or of the two females Jayammal	 widow of Ramasami Naidu	 and Ammakutti Ammal	 grandmother of Kothandaraman. The suit was resisted on behalf of the defendants challenging the validity of the adoption on two grounds. The first ground was that	 in fact	 the consent to the adoption was not obtained from Rangappa	 Devarajalu and Umavadan as pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs and	 in any case	 if the consent was obtained	 it was not properly given by those Sapindas after exercising their independent judgment as required	 so that. the consent could not validate the adoption. The second ground was that	 admittedly	 Ammakutti Ammal	 the grandmother of Kothandaraman	 was also a Sapinda and nearer in degree to the three persons consulted. Since her consent. was never obtained	 the adoption must be held to have been resorted to without the consent of the nearest sapinda and was	 consequently	 invalid. The trial Court held that the adoption was valid	 and consequently	 granted a preliminary decree for partition. The High Court of Madras	 in appeal	 differed from the trial Court. On the first question	 the High Court did not express a definite opinion in its judgment and contended itself with stating that it is probable that the adoption was thought of by plaintiff No. 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 consent of the three sapindas	 Rangappa Naidu	 Devarajalu and Umavadan. On the second point	 however	 the High Court accepted the plea put forward on behalf of the defendants that it was necessary for the adoption to be valid that the consent of Ammakutti Ammal	 the grand mother of Kothandaraman	 should have been obtained even though she was a female Sapinda. The High Court repelled the contention of the plaintiffs appellants that it was not necessary to obtain the consent of female sapindas for a valid adoption and that Hindu law only requires consent of the nearest male sapindas. On this view	 the High Court allowed the appeal	 set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Consequently	 the plaintiffs have come up to this Court in this appeal by certificate under article 13 3 of the Constitution. On the first point	 Mr. S.T. Desai appearing on behalf of the appellants	 drew our attention to the decision of this Court in V. T.S. Chandarasekhara Mudaliar and others vs Kulandaivelu Mudaliar and others(1) which appears to be the only case in which this Court had occasion to lay down the principles which (1) ; 503 applied to adoption in Madras. The Court	 	in dealing with that case	 reviewed the various decisions given by the Madras High Court and the Privy Council and indicated the principles that must be applied when	 judging the effect of consent of sapindas on the validity of an adoption. In that case	 a conditional consent had been given; by some of the sapindas	 whereas some others had refused to give consent to the adoption	 and the controversy centered round	 the question whether the consent given by some and refusal by ' others was proper. The Court indicated that such a question depended for its solution on the answer to five interrelated questions which were formulated as follows : (1) what is the source and the content of the power of the widow to adopt a boy ? (2) What is the object of adoption ? (3) Why ' is the condition of consent of the sapindas for an adoption .required under the Hindu law for its validity (4)What is the scope of 'the power of the sapindas to give consent to an adoption by a widow and the manner of its exercise ? and (5) What are the relevant circumstances a sapinda has to bear in mind in exercising his power to give consent to an adoption ? The Court took into consideration the decisions till then rendered which had bearing on these questions and	 consequently	 we do not consider it at all necessary to again discuss all those cases. On the first question	 the Court held that a widow	 either authorised by her husband to take a boy in adoption	 or after obtaining the assent of the sapindas	 has full discretion to make an adoption	 or not to make it	 and that discretion is absolute and uncontrolled. She is not bound to make an adoption and she cannot be compelled to do so. But	 if .she chooses to take a boy in adoption	 she acts as a delegate or representative of her husband and her discretion in making the adoption is strictly conditioned by the terms of the authority conferred on her by her husband; but	 in the absence of any specific authority	 her power to take a boy in adoption is coterminus with that of her husband	 subject only to the assent of the sapindas. Dealing with the next question	 the Court held that it may safely be held on the basis of the authorities that the validity of an adoption has to be judged by spiritual rather than temporal considerations and that devolution of property is only of secondary importance. It is ' the answer to the third and the fourth questions with which we are primarily concerned. On the third question	 the Court 504 held that the reason for the rule of obtaining consent of the sapindas is not the possible deprivation of the proprietary interests of the reversioners but the state of perpetual tutelage of women	 and the consent of kinsmen was considered to be an assurance that it was a bona fide performance of a religious duty and a sufficient guarantee against any capricious action by the widow in taking a boy	 in adoption. Dealing with the fourth question	 the Court quoted with approval the observations of Raiamannar	 C.J.	 in Venkatarayudu vs Sashamma(1) to the following effect : "As Mayne (Hindu law	 tenth Edition) remarks pages 221 and 222 it is very difficult to conceive of a case	 where a refusal by a sapinda can be upheld as proper. 'The practical result of the authorities therefore appears to be that a sapinda 's refusal to an adoption can seldom be justified. ' It may be that in a case where the sapinda refused his consent to the adoption of a boy on the ground that the boy was disqualified	 say	 on the ground of leprosy or idiocy	 the refusal would be proper. In this case	 we have no hesitation in holding that the refusal by the plaintiffs on the ground that the proposed boy was not a sapinda Or sagotra or a gnati was not proper." Ultimately	 the Court summarised its decision as follows : "The power of a sapinda to give his consent to an adoption by a widow is a fiduciary power. It is implicit in the said power that he must exercise it objectively and honestly and give his opinion on the advisability or otherwise of the proposed adoption in and with reference to the widow 's branch of the family. As the object of adoption by a widow is two fold	 name by	 (1) to secure the performance of the funeral rites of the person to whom the adoption is made as well as to Offer pindas to that person and his ancestors and (2) to preserve the continuance of his lineage	 he must address himself to ascertain whether the proposed adoption promotes the said two objects. It is true that temporal consideration	 though secondary in importance	 cannot be eschewed completely but those considerations must necessarily be only those connected with that branch of the widow 's family. The sapinda may consider whether the proposed adoption is in the interest of the well being of the widow or conducive to the better management of her husband 's estate. But considerations ' such as the protection of the sapindas ' (1) 505 inheritance would be extraneouS	 for they pertain to the self interest of the sapinda rather than the well being of the widow and her branch of the family. The sapindas	 as guardians and protectors of the widow	 can object to the adoption	 if the boy is legally disqualified to be adopted or if he is mentally defective or otherwise unsuitable for adoption. It is not possible to lay down any inflexible rule or standard for the guidance of the sapinda. The Court which is called upon to consider the propriety or otherwise of a sapinda 's refusal to consent to the adoption has to take into consideration all the aforesaid relevant facts and such others and to come to its decision on the facts of each case. " It is these principles which we are called upon to apply in the present case to decide how far the requirements for a valid adoption have been satisfied when plaintiff No. 2 adopted plaintiff No. 1. When this aspect of the case was being discussed in Court	 learned counsel appearing for the respondents put forward the argument that	 in the present case	 the evidence shows that the motive of the widow	 plaintiff No. 2	 or	 in any case	 her dominant motive in making the adoption; was to ensure that a half share in the property of the family comes into the possession of herself and her adopted son	 and that the adoption was not made with any spiritual considerations or for the performance of any religious duty. Learned counsel	 thus	 wanted to challenge the motive of plaintiff No. 2 in adopting plaintiff No. 1. On the other side	 the argument was that	 once the consent of the nearest sapindas is obtained by a widow before making an adoption	 the question of motive of the widow making the adoption becomes irrelevant and should not be inquired into. The principles laid down in the case cited above show that the consent of a kinsman was considered to be an assurance that the adoption was in pursuance of a bona fide performance of religious duty and would be a sufficient guarantee against any capricious action by the widow in taking the boy in adoption. This principle laid by this Court	 thus	 does indicate that the motive of a widow need not be enquired into	 because the very fact of the consent being given by the sapindas is a guarantee that the adoption is being made for proper ' reasons. In the present case	 however	 we find that	 even on facts	 the submission made on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted	 because there is evidence to show that the adoption was made by plaintiff No. 2 with the object of proper performance of ceremonies for the benefit of her deceased husband and other ancestors	 though plaintiff 506 No. 2 also had in mind the advantage she would receive because her own adopted son would obtain rights to the property and she may be better looked after. The intention of the widow	 in making the adoption	 was clearly expressed by her in 'the notice Ext. A 2 sent on 6th December	 1954 by her counsel to defendant. 2 Jayammal who was .the guardian of defendant No. 1	 Kurta Naidu	 the latter being the person who was then holding the family property. It was stated in that notice "that my client is very anxious to adopt a son to her husband Kothandarama Naidu alias Kumarasami Naidu for securing a good son to her late husband performing his ceremonies offering oblations perpetuating the progeny (Line) and to save the soul of my client 's husband from what is known as 'Puth Narakam ' ". Similar expression of her intention is contained in another letter Ext. A 4 which was sent by the Advocate on her behalf to one of the Sapindas	 Devarajulu Naidu	 asking for his consent to the adoptions. It has also come in evidence that letters similar to the one sent to Devarajulu Naidu were also sent to the other two nearest Sapindas Rangappa Naidu and Umavadan in order to obtain their consent. In addition	 even in Court	 plaintiff No. 2 appeared as a witness and stated on oath that "the adoption was to my husband and for perpetuating and to do the ceremonies". It was argued on behalf of the respondents that	 even though these expressions of the reason for adoption by the widow exist in the documents and in oral evidence	 the further facts elicited show that her dominant motive was in fact to obtain possession of property and that the consideration of spiritual benefit to her husband did not exist. It is true that	 in cross examination	 some facts have been elicited which indicate that considerations relating to material benefit also existed when plaintiff No 2 decided to make the adoption. She herself admitted that the subject of adoption was broached to her about a year before the adoption by one Ethirajulu Naidu who said that	 if she adopted a boy	 he would get the property and she could depend on it. According to her	 the same person advised her to take plaintiff No. 1 in adoption. Even the consenting sapinda Rangappa	 who appeared as a witness	 admitted in cross examination that the second plaintiff had no one to feed her	 and her relatives did not call her; and that was the reason why she made ' the adoption. These answers elicited in cross examination do not	 however	 in our opinion	 show that the question of spiritual benefit or performance of religious ceremonies was not one of the considerations in making the adoption. In fact	 on the evidence	 it appears that Rangappa Naidu	 when he gave his consent	 had been told why plaintiff No. 2 was going to make the adoption in the written letter sent to him; and it seems that his consent was given in view of that consideration	 though	 in addition	 as he has stated on oath	 507 he also took into account the fact of material benefit to plaintiff No. 2. This takes us to the crucial point whether	 in this case	 the consent of the sapindas that was obtained by plaintiff No. 2 before adopting plaintiff No. 1 was a proper consent which would validate the adoption. Of the three consenting sapindas	 Rangappa Naidu was the only one who was examined in court and he clearly stated m his examination in chief that he gave his consent in writing vide letter Ext. 7 A. He added that printed invitations were issued in his name and he and his cousin Devarajulu were present at the adoption. A deed of adoption was written and executed and he and Devarajulu both attested it. He also definitely stated that he made no profit at all out of this adoption	 nor was he given any promise that he would get any property by giving his consent to the adoption. To challenge this evidence	 learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to some of the statements made in cross examination. Rangappa Naidu	 when questioned	 seems to have admitted that he signed the letter of consent at the place of adoption	 even though his consent letter Ext. A 7 purports to have been sent much earlier than the date of adoption. It seems to us that	 being an old man of 80 years of age	 he had some confusion in his mind about making the signatures on various documents. In his examination in chief	 he has clearly stated that he had signed the deed of adoption at the time of adoption and it means that	 when cross examined	 he became confused and gave his answer under the impression that deed of adoption was also the consent letter signed by him. In our opinion	 the statement made in cross examination that he signed the letter of consent at the place of adoption was really intended to refer to his signatures on the deed of adoption which signatures he must have made after expressing again his consent to the adoption. That his mind was confused appears from the further circumstance that he stated in cross examination that the name of the boy to be adopted was not mentioned in the invitation issued in his name	 though	 in fact	 the name is actually mentioned. We are	 therefore	 unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the consent of Rangappa Naidu has not been properly proved in this case. Apart from the consent of Rangappa Naidu	 the plaintiffs also relied on the fact that consent was also given by the only other two equally remote sapindas Devarajulu and Umavadan. The High Court	 in its judgment	 appears to have held that the consent of these persons was not proved satisfactorily by the plaintiffs	 though the trial Court had taken the contrary view. It is true that	 in this case	 Devarajulu and Umavadan were not examined. The consent letters signed were	 however	 put on the file. Deva Sup. CI/70 2 508 rajulu 's signature on the consent letter was proved by Damodaran Naidu who obtained the letter of consent and who is the natural father of plaintiff No. 1. Damodaran Naidu clearly proved that this letter was signed in his presence by Devarajulu. The High Court expressed the view that this consent letter cannot be taken to be proved on the ground that Devarajulu himself was not examined as a witness	 and incorrectly ignored the fact that the document was proved by the evidence of Damodaran Naidu. Reference	 in this connection	 was also made to the statement of plaintiff No. 2 herself that she had obtained the consent of Devarajulu about a month before she went to the Vakil for advice about adoption and that she did not take the consent from him in writing. The fact that she did not herself obtain the written consent from Devarajulu does not. 	 however	 detract from the value to be attached to the written consent which was obtained by her brother Damodaran and not by herself. No doubt	 there are some petty discrepancies between the evidence of these witnesses	 but we do not think that they are of such a nature as would justify our disbelieving them. In our opinion	 the consent of Devarajulu to the adoption was also properly established. In the case of Umavadan	 of course	 there is a discrepancy that	 according to plaintiff No. 2 herself	 she obtained his consent when she met him 10 days after the adoption	 though the consent letter by him purports to have been signed earlier. This admission was made by plaintiff No. 2 in her cross examination	 and	 in view of this admission	 we do not think we will be justified in differing from the decision of the High Court that Umavadan 's consent has not been properly established. In this case	 there was also some argument as to his capacity to give consent. The case seems to have been put forward that he was deaf and dumb and	 consequently	 incapable of giving evidence	 though plaintiff No. 2 herself in her cross examination made a qualification that Umavadan could hear	 though he was dumb. It also appears that he can write and make his signature. It is possible that he may have given his consent in writing when asked orally or in writing	 because he could both hear and read; but	 as we have said earlier	 in view of the admission of plaintiff No. 2 that she obtained his consent 10 days after the adoption	 we must disregard the consent given by him. Thus	 the adoption is supported by the consent given by two out of three equally near sapindas. The effect of this consent was challenged on two grounds. One was that t	 he consent should have been obtained from all the ' three and not merely two. In our opinion	 the consent of the majority would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a widow	 in making the adoption should consult the nearest sapin 509 das. It is not essential that the consent should have been obtained from all the three	 particularly when Umavadan was at least partially incapacitated as being dumb. The second ground	 on which the value of the consent by these sapindas was challenged	 was that no evidence has been produced to show that	 when giving their consent	 they had consciously applied their mind to the question whether the widow was making the adoption for the performance of a religious duty or for spiritual benefit to the husband of the adoptive mother and his ancestors. As we have indicated earlier	 out of the two consenting sapindas	 only Rangappa Naidu has been examined and	 in his evidence	 he has not made any such specific statement. That	 in our opinion	 is not very material	 because	 as the principles laid down in various cases show	 the very fact that consent is given by a sapinda implies that the adoption is considered desirable and is being resorted to by the widow for spiritual and religious considerations and not out of caprice. Every sapinda knows that	 as soon as an adoption is made	 spiritual benefit will accrue to the deceased husband and that the existence of the adopted son will perpetuate his line. Such consciousness is implied in giving the consent. It is only when the consent is being refused by a sapinda that it becomes relevant to see whether the refusal was justified on the ground that the adoption was not being made with such objects. The mere omission of counsel in asking Rangappa Naidu whether he had considered the question of spiritual benefit at the time of giving consent cannot	 therefore	 imply that the consent was given for other considerations. A consent would	 no doubt	 be of no value for validating an adoption if the person giving the consent has his own personal motives. In the present case	 Rangappa Naidu clearly stated that he was not to get any benefit at all out of the adoption of plaintiff No. 1 by plaintiff No. 2. There is also	 however	 the further fact that	 according to the evidence	 letters were sent to both Rangappa Naidu and Devarajulu Naidu in which the reason for adoption was expressed by the counsel for plaintiff No. 2. As we have noticed earlier	 they gave their written consent in response to those letters	 and it can be presumed that the consent was given in view of the object indicated in those letters asking for their consent. There is the further circumstance that	 according to the evidence	 both Rangappa Naidu and Devarajulu were present at the adoption and signed the adoption deed. They are both literate. The adoption deed clearly mentions the purpose of adoption which is the proper purpose for a widow in making the adoption; and it would not be unjustified to infer that both these persons had consented to the adoption again at that time in view of the object men 510 tioned in the deed of adoption. On facts also	 therefore	 it appears to be justified to hold that the consent was given by these two sapindas for proper reasons and the fact that they had given their consent would ensure the validity of the adoption. On the second question	 one aspect that has Considerable bearing is the reason which led the law givers in the Hindu law to insist on the right of a widow to adopt a son being contingent either on conferment of authority on her by her husband	 or	 in the absence of such authority	 on the assent of the nearest sapindas. This question was also considered to some extent by this Court in the case of V.T.S. Chandarasekhara Mudaliar(1) where the Court began by noticing that the basis for the doctrine of consent may be discovered in the well known text of Vasishta: "Let not a woman give or accept a son except with the assent of her Lord." The Court then also quoted two texts of Yagnavalkya in Chapter 1	 verse 85 and in Chapter 2	 verse 130 which are ordinarily relied upon to sustain the said doctrine: "Let her father protect a maiden; her husband a married woman; sons in old age; if none of these	 other gratis (kinsmen). She is not fit for independence." "He whom his father or mother gives in adoption is Dattaka (a son given). " After noticing briefly the summary of the evolution of the law by subsequent commentators	 the Court proceeded to hold that the said	 doctrine is mainly rounded on the state of perpetual tutelage assigned to women by Hindu law expressed so tersely and clearly in the well known text of Yagnavalkya in Chapter 1	 verse 85	 quoted above. The Court then took notice of the decision in The Collector of Madura vs Moots Ramalinga Sathupathy & Connected Cases(2) (popularly known as	 and hereinafter referred to as	 the 'Ramnad Case ') and referring to it as the leading decision approved of the observations of Sir James William Colvile who made a real contribution to the development of this aspect of Hindu law which were to the following effect: "But they (the opinions of Pandits) show a considerable concurrence of opinion	 to the effect that	 where the authority of her Husband is wanting	 a Widow may (1) [1963	] 2 S.C.R. 440. (2) 12 M.I.A. 397. 511 adopt a Son with the assent of his kindred in the Dravida Country. " The Court also indicated that the reason for this rule was clearly stated in that judgment as follows : "The assent of kinsmen seems to be required by reason of the presumed incapacity of women for independence	 rather than the necessity of procuring the consent of all those whose possible and reversionary interest in the estate would be defeated by the adoption. " In Veera Basavaraju and Others vs Balasurya Prasada Rao & Another(1)	 their Lordships of the Privy Council reiterated the observations made in the case of Raghanadha vs Brojo Kishoro(2) to the following effect : "But it is impossible not to see that there are grave social objections to making the succession of property and it may be in the case of collateral succession	 as in the present instance	 the rights of parties in actual possession dependent on the caprice of a woman	 subject to all the pernicious influences which interested advisers are too apt in India to exert over women possessed of	 or capable of exercising dominion over	 property." Thus	 the entire case law on the subject clearly indicates that the requirement for consent of a sapinda for adoption by a widow who has not obtained the consent of her husband in his lifetime was laid down	 because Hindu law considers a woman incapable of independent judgment and proceeds on the basis that a woman is likely to be easily misled by undesirable advisers. This aspect	 in our opinion	 has considerable bearing on the question whether a widow making an adoption must or need not obtain the consent of another senior woman in the family who is herself a widow. It seems to us that	 if a woman is incapable of exercising independent judgment in the matter of deciding whether she should adopt a son to her deceased husband	 she can hardly be a competent adviser to another widow on the same matter. In the present case	 for example	 if the grand mother Ammakutti were to decide to adopt a son	 she would have to obtain consent of Sapin das in the absence of authority from her deceased husband and that requirement would arise because of her incapacity to exercise independent judgment. If she cannot exercise an independent judgment in the matter of making an adoption herself	 it would follow that she would not be able to exercise an independent (1) [1918] L. R. 45 I. A. 265. (2) [1876] L.R. 3 I.A. 154. 512 judgment to advise plaintiff No. 2	 her grandmother widow. The advice of a person incapable of independent judgment would hardly ensure that the adoption to be made by a widow is proper and justified. On the principles thus recognised in Hindu law	 it would be justified to hold that a Hindu widow	 even if she happens to be the nearest sapinda to the widow seeking to make the adoption	 would not be a competent adviser and	 consequently	 there can be no requirement that her consent must be obtained for validating the adoption. The principles clearly point to the conclusion that the consent must be obtained from the nearest male sapinda. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents	 in support of the decision of the High Court	 drew our attention to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ramnad Case where it was held : "Upon the whole	 then	 their Lordships are of opinion that there is enough of positive authority to warrant the proposition that	 according to the law prevalent in the Dravada Country	 and particularly in that part of it wherein the Ramnad zamindary is situate	 a Hindoo Widow	 not having her husband 's permission	 may	 if duly authorised by his kindred	 adopt a son to him." He emphasised the fact that	 in laying down this principle	 the word used was "kindred" without any qualification whether the kindred should be a male or female. Reliance was also placed on the fact that	 in that case	 the Privy Council held the adoption made by the widow to be valid	 inter alia	 on the ground that the consent of a senior female kindred had been obtained. In that case	 the widow had adopted a son with the consent of distant agnate a samanodaka who was the natural male protector of the widow in the absence of nearer male relations	 as well as with the consent of the mother in law and other persons who were proved beyond all question to have assented to the adoption. This second aspect of the decision of the Privy Council in attaching value to the consent of the mother in law for purposes of holding the adoption to be valid was	 however	 based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Their Lordships found that the mother in law was unquestionably the heir to the property next in succession to the widow who was making the adoption	 and the mother in law had been specifically. nominated by the deceased husband to look after his widow. He had addressed. a letter to the ColleCtor	 of 	the District in which he specifically stated that he had made arrangement that 'his mother	 Who was his guardian in every respect	 and who had held chief right to the 513 zamindary	 was to enjoy the zamindary and all other things; was to pay poishkist to the Cirkar	 and was to maintain his royal wife	 his daughter	 and her younger sister	 a small child; when the children grew up and attained proper age	 she was to make an arrangement with regard to their right to the zamindary	 and continue the same. In that case	 therefore	 it is clear that the opinion of the mother in law was considered of some importance by the Privy Council because of this special authority granted to her by the husband of the widow in his own life time. The case cannot be taken as deciding that	 in every case	 the consent of a mother in law would be competent to make an adoption valid	 or that	 in order to make a valid adoption	 her consent must be obtained on the ground that she is the nearest kindred alive. On this aspect of the Ramnad Case	 in order to strengthen his argument	 learned counsel referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in Rajah Damara Kumara Venkatappa Nayanim Bahadur Varu vs Darnara Renga Rao(1) in which it was held that an adoption by a junior widow without the consent of the senior widow was bad and could not be held to be valid. It was argued by the counsel in that case that the senior widow was entitled to be consulted as one of the kindred	 while	 on the other side	 it was argued that a widow is not a sapinda but only succeeds as one of the enumerated heirs. Wallis	 C.J.	 in giving his decision	 said : "I do not think it necessary to go into this question	 but having regard to the decision of their Lordships in Ramnad Case that the assent of the mother in law Mothuveroyee in that case was operative in support of the adoption	 I should be disposed to hold that the senior widow was one of the kinsmen whom it was the duty of the junior widow to consult and that the adoption was bad for failing to consult her. " We are unable to accept the view expressed by Wallis	 C.J.	 that the principle laid down in Ramnad Case justified an inference that it was necessary to obtain the consent of the nearest sapinda if she happened to be a widow. It is true that	 in the Ramnad Case	 the adoption made by the widow was held to be valid	 after attaching some weight to the opinion of the mother in law	 but that was primarily because she had been given a special position by the writing left by the widow 's husband when addressing his letter to the Collector. Another. point to be kept in view when considering this Madras decision is that it is a well recognised principle in Hindu law that	 if there are two widows	 the senior widow has the preferential right to make an adoption; and it may ' (1) I.L.R. 514 be a good consideration	 when judging the validity of an adoption by a junior widow	 to see whether she did so after obtaining the consent of the senior widow whose preferential right would thus be defeated. A similar interpretation of the Ramnad Cose was accepted in another decision of the Madras High Court in Maharaja Kolhapur vs section Sundaram Ayyar and 15 Others(1) where it was held that the consent of the Queen mother was sufficient in Hindu law to validate the adoption made by the widow Rani	 her daughter in law. In arriving at this decision	 Kumaraswami Sastri	 J.	 held : "It is clear from the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Collector of Modura vs Mootoo Ramalinga Sathupathy (Ramnad Case) that the consent of Avu Bai Saheba	 the mother of Sivaii	 would validate the adoption in the absence of any other Sapindas." That case	 again	 had a special feature of its own	 viz.	 that the Court found that there were no sapindas	 except Avu Bai Saheba in existence. It was held that	 if there was no male sapinda at all	 it would be wrong to hold that the widow would not be capable of making an adoption at all and it was for this reason that it was held that the consent of the female sapinda	 viz.	 the mother in law was sufficient to validate the adoption. This interpretation of the decision of the Privy Council in the Ramnad Case cannot	 however	 be accepted as correct in view of the subsequent decisions by the Privy Council itself where the interpretation put was different. Mr. Ameer Ali	 speaking for the Judicial Committee	 in the case of Veera Basavaraju(2)	 said : "The Ramnad Case established the proposition that	 in the Dravada Country	 under the Dravadian branch of the Mitakshara law there in force	 in the absence of authority from her deceased husband a widow may adopt a son with the assent of his male agnates." In that case	 thus	 the Privy Council held that the reference to kindred or kinsmen	 whose consent is to be obtained by a widow for a valid adoption	 in Ramnad Case was intended to cover male agnates only. In an other subsequent case of Ghanta China Ramasubbayya & Another vs Moparthi Chenchuramayya	 (1) I.L.R. 48 Mad. 1	204. (2) [1918] L.R. 45 I.A. 265. 515 Minor	 and Others(1)	 the Privy Council referred to this decision of Mr. Ameer Ali	 and	 after quoting the extract reproduced by us above	 held : "The words 'kindred and kinsmen '	 words of general significance	 used in the Ramnad case	 are here interpreted to mean 'male agnates ' and this interpretation is amply borne out by the facts of that case as already stated. Similar expressions appearing in the other cases should also be similarly interpreted. " Thus	 the interpretation placed on the decision in the Ramnad Case by Mr. Ameer Ali in Veera Basavaraju 's case(2) was further affirmed by the Privy Council in this latest case of Ghanta China Ramasubbayya(1). In view of these decisions of the Privy Council	 we do not think that we can accept the interpretation put on the decision in Ramnad Case in the judgments of the Madras High Court. On the other hand	 the correct interpretation of that case was further followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Varadamma vs Kanchi Sankara Reddi & Others(a). It was urged by learned counsel that the two decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Veera Basavaraju(a) and Ghanta China RamasubbaYYa(1) were not concerned with the question whether it is necessary to obtain the consent of the nearest female sapinda or not. In the former case	 the adoption had been made with the assent of the remote sapinda without the consent of the nearest sapinda. In the latter case	 the question was whether the consent of the daughter 's son	 who would	 under Hindu law	 be a preferential heir to the deceased husband	 was necessary when consent was obtained from a sapinda who	 in the order of succession	 would come after the daughter 's son. It was urged that the Privy Council in neither of these two cases was called upon to pronounce on the question whether	 by using the expression "kindred or kinsmen" in Ramnad Case	 it was intended to refer to male agnates only	 or to all agnates whether male or female. Even though this is correct	 we consider that the subsequent interpretation put on the decision in Ramnad Case in these decisions by the Privy Council is entitled to great weight. Further	 the view expressed in these decisions bears out our opinion which we formed on the basis of the position given to a woman in Hindu law as a person incapable of exercising independent judgment. Consequently	 we must hold that the High Court was wrong in holding the adoption of plaintiff (1) L.R. 74. I.A. 162. (2) [1918] L.R. 45 I.A. 265 (3) A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 933. 516 No. 1 by plaintiff No	. 2 in the present case as invalid and the decision of the High Court must be set aside. As a result	 we set aside the decision given by the High Court. The case will now 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. 1 by plaintiff No. 2 was invalid. The costs of this appeal shall be payable by the respondents to the appellants.

Summary:
A Hindu widow in the Dravida country	 who had no authority from her husband to adopt	 adopted a son with the consent of two out of three her nearest male sapindas in 1955. The two sapindas gave their written consent in response to her letters asking for their consent wherein she stated that the object of the adoption was the proper performance of ceremonies for the benefit of her husband and his ancestors. They also signed the adoption deed which mentioned the purpose of the adoption. The widow	 however	 did not obtain the consent of her husband 's grandmother	 who was nearer in degree than these two sapindas. On the question of the validity of the adoption	 HELD: (1) The validity of an adoption has to be judged by spiritual rather than temporal considerations. But	 in a case where the widow makes an adoption after obtaining her sapindas ' consent	 her motive need not be inquired into because	 the very fact that the sapindas had given their consent was a guarantee that the adoption was being made for proper reasons. [505 G H] (2) It is only when a sapinda refuses consent that it becomes relevant to see whether the refusal was justified on the ground that the adoption was not for proper objects. Where a sapinda gives consent	 the very fact that the consent was given implies that the adoption 'was considered desirable and was being resorted to by the widow for spiritual considerations. [509 C E] In the present case	 the consenting sapindas had no personal motives in giving the consent	 spiritual benefit of her husband was in fact one of the considerations for the widow making the adoption	 and the sapindas had not merely an implied but express knowledge that the adoption was being resorted to by the widow for spiritual considerations. Though one of them was not examined as a witness	 his consent letter was proved by a witness in whose presence he signed the letter. [508 A B; 510 A B] (3 ) The consent of the majority of the nearest sapindas would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a widow should consult the nearest sapindas. Therefore	 the consent given by two out of three equally near sapindas	 was sufficient to support the adoption. [508 G H] (4) The consent of a sapinda for adoption by a widow	 who has no authority from her husband	 was required under Hindu law	 because	 a woman is considered incapable of exercising independent judgment in the matter. In the present case if the grandmother of the deceased husband were to desire to adopt a son herself would have to obtain the consent of her sapindas in the absence of her husband 's authority	 because of her incapacity to exercise independent judgment: and it would follow that she could hardly be a competent adviser to another widow	 namely	 her grand 500 son 's widow on the same matter. Therefore	 even if she happens to be the nearest sapinda there could be no requirement that her consent must be obtained for validating the adoption. [511 E F; G H; 512 B] (5) The reference in The Collector of Madura. vs Mootoo Ramalinga Sethupatty	 12 M.I.A. 397	 to 'kindred or kinsmen	 whose consent is to be obtained by a widow for a valid adoption	 is to male agnates only. In that case	 the opinion of the mother in law regarding the adoption by her daughter in daw was considered important by the Judicial Committee only because of the special authority granted to the mother in law by her son and not because	 in every case	 the consent of a mother in law was necessary to make an adoption by the daughter in law valid	 or that her consent must be obtained on the ground that she is the nearest Kindred alive. B C; 514 H] V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar vs Kulandai Velu Mudaliar 	40	 followed. Raghanadha vs Brojo Kishoro	 [1876] LR. 3 I.A. 154	 Veera Basavaraju vs Balasurya Prasada Rao	 [1918] L.R. 45 I.A. 265 and Ghanta China Ramasubbayya vs Maparthi Chenchuramayya	 L.R. 74 I.A. 162	 applied. Varadamma vs Kanchi Santkara Reddi A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 933	 approved. Observations Contra in Rajah Damara Kumara Venkatappa Nayanim Bahadur Varu vs Damara Renga Rao I.L.R. and Maharajah Kolhapur vs section Sundaram Avyar	 I.L.R. 48 Mad. 1	 204	 disapproved.