TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1948 (2) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1923, without leaving any male issue. As the paternal uncle of the late Zemindar, the appellant claimed the estate as the nearest heir. This claim was resisted by the respondent, the son of the late Zemindar's natural brother, on the ground that he had been validly adopted to the late Zemindar by his senior widow and he was thus the rightful successor. 5. Before stating in detail the contentions of the parties, it will be useful to notice the following pedigree of the family subsequent to the year 1897, which will show the relationship of the parties concerned in this appeal. 6. Raja Sankara Royal, the Zemindar of Punganur, who died in 1897, left three sons, Raja Vira Basava Chikka Royal, Kumara Chikka Royal and Mahadeva Royal, the appellant. On the death of Raja Sankara Royal, the eldest son, Raja Vira Basava, succeeded to the Zamindari. Raja Vira Basava dated on 2lst October 1911, leaving two sons, the late Raja and his brother Raja Somasekhara Chikka Royal, defendant 1 and the natural father of the respondent. On the death of Raja Vira Basava, the late Raja succeeded to the Zamindari. As stated before, he died without leaving any male issue, but he left him surviving two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Somasekhara was adopted, or, if he was adopted, that the adoption was valid, then his suit would have to be dismissed, because in the circumstances, Raja Somasekhara would remain a member of the Punganur family and the respondent, being the son of the only brother of the late Raja, would be the nearest heir. It would be only if the appellant succeeded in proving that Raja Somasekhara was validly adopted, that the question of the adoption of the respondent would necessarily arise for decision. 11. Voluminoas evidence, oral and documentary, was adduced by both parties in support of their respective cases; and the learned Judges of the Courts in India dealt with both the adoptions in the long judgments delivered by them. 12. The Subordinate Judge held that Raja Somesekhara had been validly adopted to the Javakgiri Zemindar and thus ceased to be a member of the Punganur family; he also held that though the adoption of the respondent was not validated by the consent of sapindas, as they who had given consent were not the nearest sapindas, the adoption was valid, because of the oral authority given by the late Raja to make the adoption. In the result, he held that the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also written and given a document. I shall file them in the enquiry. She did not file it then, or at the time of the enquiry. It was never produced by her when she had opportunities to do so. She herself did not go into the witness box to support the appellant's case. The High Court has for valid reasons "found it impossible to hold on the oral evidence that. Venkata Mahipal bad authorised Umabai to adopt." Their Lordships agree with this conclusion. 17. Turning to the documentary evidence, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied, amongst other evidence, on the assertions of her authority to adopt made by Umabai on various occasions, the adoption deed, and particularly on certain documents, Exs. JJJ, KKK, LLL and MMM, which were held inadmissible in evidence by the High Court, but had been accepted by the-trial Court. The admissibility of these documents-formed the main theme of the arguments of Sir Herbert Cunliffe which were to the effect that if these had been admitted in evidence, it would have been shown conclusively that Umabai had authority given to her by her husband to adopt. 18. It will be advantageous now to state a few facts relevant to the arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication, there is nothing on record to show that the originals ever existed. Mr. Subba Row, the learned junior counsel for the appellant, argued that the appellant's case is that the originals have been destroyed, but this again has not been proved. The documents in question had on them the following certificate from the Resident of Hyderabad: Certified that this document is a public document of the Hyderabad State duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original. Having regard to the fact that Umabai had filed only copies in Hyderabad, the word "original" in the certificates can only refer to the copies filed and not to the original documents. As the learned Judges of the High Court observe: The copies (which were produced at the trial of the case) of the copies (which were produced in Hyderabad) can possibly have no better value than the original copies produced in Hyderabad on account of the Resident's certificate. The High Court rejected these documents as there is no satisfactory, evidence on the record that the copies now tendered were either correct copies of the originals or that the originals of these documents aver existed. 2....