Lord Parmoor:-

The only question raised in this appeal is whether the late Mahipat Rao Bhau adopted the appellant Diwaker as his son, and heir to the Hatta Zamindari, on the 10th November, 1898. It the adoption did take place, the adoptive father could not subsequently revoke the adoption. It is not argued that he had any such power.

The appellant was born on the 26th October, 1898, and was the second son of Indraraj. Bhau. Mahipat Rao was a relation on the agnatic side and had had eight children by his deceased wife, all of whom had died in infancy, except Gotoo, who died in 1894 aged about 16. At the time of the alleged adoption Mahipat Rao had two young wives, one married in 1891, and one in 1895. There was no reason why he might not have further issue; two children were in fact born to him at later date. Both Indraraj and Mahipat Rao were Zamindars of considerable position.

There was no deed of adoption and the case for the appellant depends almost entirely on oral testimony. The judge of the District Court found in favour of the appellant. This judgment was reversed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces. In their Lordships' opinion it is important to appre