Judgement

Appeal (No. 127 of 1931) from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces (March 27, 1929), affirming a decree of the Additional District Judge of Raipur.

The appellant and respondent No. 2 sued respondent No. 1 claiming the estate of Rao Dani as reversionary heirs upon the death of his widow. They alleged that the adoption of respondent No. 1 by Rao Danis widow was invalid on the ground that it was in violation of the terms of a will executed by the deceased on November 26, 1911. The defences included (1.) That the will was not binding ; first, because it was contingent and in the events which had happened became inoperative, and secondly, because it had been orally revoked and the adoption orally authorized; (2.) That the terms of the will had been substantially complied with.

The trial judge rejected all the defences under the first head, but dismissed the suit, holding that the terms of the will had been substantially complied with.

An appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner was dismissed upon the ground that the will was contingent and had become inoperative, and that consequently the widows power to adopt was unfettered. The other