Judgement

Appeal (No. 44 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court made upon an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent (March 7, 1928) affirming a decree of the Court in its appellate jurisdiction (October 26, 1926), which affirmed a decree of the District Judge of Godavari (October 5, 1920); and petitioner to admit excluded evidence.

The suit was instituted in 1915 by the respondent against the appellants, the second appellant being in possession of the estate of Gollaprolu for a widows estate, and the first appellant having been adopted by her to her deceased husband Venkata Rao in 1914. The plaintiff, claiming to be the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed to Gollaprolu, prayed for a declaration that the adoption was invalid. The defendants by their written statement denied that the plaintiff was, as he claimed to be, the aurasa son of the Raja of Pittapur, who died in 1890, and contended that consequently he could not maintain the suit; issues upon that question were framed.

The only question determined, or argued, upon the present proceedings was whether under s. 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the evidence given by witnesses, since dead, in a suit of 1891 was adm