1. We agree with the District Judge in holding that the widow has failed to prove any authority from her husband. The evidence to this effect is very meagre. As to the alleged consent of the Dayahdies after his death, the evidence for the plaintiffs that no such consent was given is supported by Exhibit F, the petition put in by the widow a few days before making the adoption. In this petition which was drawn up for her by a pleader she mentions the husband's authoritation and says Kumara Govindan, her husband's brother, was intending to oppose it. If he had previously consented and then changed his mind this would have been stated in the petition. We agree with the District Judge on this point also.
2. As to the point of law we think the decision in Subrahmanyam v. Venkammna 26 M.k 627 affirmed by the Privy Council in Jonalgodda Venkamma v. Jonalgadda Subramaniam 4 A.L.J. 150 establishes that it was the duty of the widow to consult Kumara Gownden, the nearest sapinda, as well as other near sapindas before making the adoption and that her failure to consult them rendered the adoption invalid.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.