Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. The plaintiff filed this suit for the purpose of getting a declaration that the adoption made by the first defendant of the second defendant is invalid. That the form of adoption was gone through was found by the lower Courts. The first defendant alleged that she had the authority of her deceased husband to make an adoption and this was found against her both by the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge and it is a question of fact and I cannot interfere with this finding in second appeal.
2. The appeal may be disposed of very shortly. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were the nearest reversionary heirs to the estate of the last male-holder. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 gave their consent to the adoption. The plaintiff and the third defendant were not consulted and they did not give their consent. The question arises in these circumstances, what is the effect of the adoption made by the first defendant
3. It was held in Venkamma v. Subramaniam 30 M.P 50 : 34 I.A. 22 : 9 Bom. L.R. 89 : 4 A.L.J. 150 : 5 C.L.J. 140 : 11 C.W.N. 345 : 17 M.L.J. 114 : 2 M.L.T. 91 that failure to consult one of the two nearest kinsmen rendered the adoption invalid. This case was referred to with approval by the Judicial Committee in a more recent case, of Kritsnayya v. Lakshmipathi 58 Ind. Cas. 391 : 43 M.P 650 : 18 A.L.J. 601 : (1920) M.W.N. 385 : 24 C.W.N. 905 : 39 M.L.J. 70 : 28 M.L.T. 70 : 12 L.W. 625 : 47 I.A. 99. This is what their Lordships say in that case: 'It must, however, be added that, save in exceptional cases such as those mentioned above, the consent of the nearest sapindas must be asked, and if it is not asked it is no excuse to say that they would certainly have refused.' It has not been suggested that the present case conies within the exceptions referred to in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. In Venkamma v. Subramaniam 30 M.P 50 : 34 I.A. 22 : 9 Bom. L.R. 89 : 4 A.L.J. 150 : 5 C.L.J. 140 : 11 C.W.N. 345 : 17 M.L.J. 114 : 2 M.L.T. 91 their Lordships put the matter thus: 'In their Lordships' judgment, the appellants have failed to justify the widow in omitting to ask for the authority of a person holding so important a position in the family as did the first respondent. She defends herself by saying that she knew he would refuse; but she is not entitled to say so, and to consult him was essential to her obtaining the mind of the kinsmen on this family question.'
4. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 1 and 4.