JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J. :—One Trilok Prasad Singh, who was the last male holder in his line, died on May 12, 1948 leaving behind his widow Kachnar Kuer and his step-mother Sheo Kuer. On February 12, 1956 Kachnar Kuer executed two registered deeds. By one of these she adopted a son to her deceased husband and by the other, which is described as a Deed or Arpannama, she created a religious endowment in the name of Sri Gopalji and appointed her mother-in-law Sheo Kuer as a shebait.

2. Respondents 1 and 2, claiming to be reversioners, filed suit No. 16 of 1956 in the court of the First Subordinate Judge, Gaya, for a declaration that the two deeds were void and illegal and were not binding on their reversionary interest. Kachnar Kuer was defendant 1, the adopted son was defendant 2 and Sheo Kuer was defendant 3 to the suit.

3. During the suit, the defendants were evidently of one mind and they contended by their written statements that the impugned deeds were executed under the authority given by the deceased Trilok Prasad Singh and that respondents 1 and 2 had no right to bring the suit after June 17, 1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that Trilok Prasad Singh had given Authority to Kachnar Kuer to make an adoption and to create an endowment and therefore both the deeds were valid.

5. Against the dismissal of their suit, respondents 1 and 2 filed First Appeal No. 152 of 1959 in the High Court of Patna. By its judgment dated October 3, 1964 the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit holding that Trilok Prasad Singh had not given authority to Kachnar Kuer to take a son in adoption and under the Banaras School of Hindu Law by which the parties were governed, an adoption made by a widow without the authority of her husband was invalid. The High Court also held that Trilok Prasad Singh had not authorised Kachnar Kuer to create a religious endowment over any part of his property and since by the Arpan-nama a large piece of property was dedicated to the deity, the dedication was void. On the question whether, after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, respondents 1 and 2 as reversioners could maintain the suit, the High Court held that on the material date Kachnar Kuer was not in possession of the property and therefore her limited estate could not ripen into an absolute estate under the Hindu Succession Act.

6. Kachnar Kuer made an application to the High Court for a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court and High Court by its order dated May 10, 1965 granted a certificate of fitness under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution. But after the petition of appeal was lodged in this Court, Kachnar Kuer joined hands with respondents 1 and 2 and purported to enter into a compromise dividing the property left by Trilok Prasad Singh between themselves. The appellant, Sheo Kuer, who was appointed as a shebait under the deed of Arpan-nama has thereafter, obtained special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment of the High Court. We are, in this judgment, concerned with Sheo Kuer s appeal, not with the appeal filed by Kachnar Kuer by certificate.

7. The High Court has rejected the evidence led to show that Trilok Prasad. Singh had given authority to Kachnar Kuer to make an adoption to him. The finding that the adoption is without the authority of the husband and therefore void is not challenged before us either by Kachnar Kuer or by the adopted son and that finding must therefore be confirmed.

8. Since the evidence on the other question as to whether Trilok Prasad Singh had given authority to Kachnar Kuer to create a religious 711 endowment was closely linked with the question regarding the authority to adopt and since the pattern of evidence on both the question is identical, the High Court held that Kachnar Kuer did not either have the authority of her husband to instal the deity or dedicate any property to the deity. This finding is not ch