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 appreciate the general position of the parties and the surrounding circumstances before attempting to determine what weight should be attached to the evidence called on behalf of the plaintiff.

Indraraj, the appellant's father, resided at Fulchur. Mahipat Rao with his two wives, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, went to Fulchur to be present at the appellant's Barsa, a ceremony performed 12 days after the birth of an infant. They stayed at Fulchur a few days after the Barsa and the alleged adoption is said to have taken place on the 10th November, 1899. Subject to two matters, to which attention will be drawn, it is clear that Mahipat Rao from the outset and during his life consistently denied that the plaintiff was his adopted son. A letter of the 10th February, 1899, written only three months after the date of the alleged adoption supports the case of the respondents and is inconsistent with that of the appellant. This letter refers to arrangements having been made "for taking of younger Bhau's zalar near Pinglai Goddess on the 18th February 1899." In reference to this letter, Indraraj says in his evidence: "The removal of the first hair of a boy in my family is made in the temple of Pinglai at Bhandara." When the appellant's hair was removed Mahipat Rao was invited, but for some reason or other he was unable to attend. It is further stated that Mahipat Rao did not bring his children to Bhandara to be shaved, and that he had not written to Indraraj in reference to the ceremony. At some time between the 11th January and the end of March, 1899, Kaluram Pachourey, District Saugor, visited Mahipat Rao, and had a talk with him about the adoption of the boy. His evidence is that Mahipat Rao told him that the members of Lataria Bhau's family expressed to him a desire that the new-born son might be adopted by him but that he did not express his willingness or agree to the proposal. In August, 1902, Indraraj was told by Mr. Laurie that Mahipat Rao was denying that he had adopted the appellant, and Indraraj states that after this denial he had no talk with Mahipat Rao about the adoption. The evidence of Mr. C. E. Low, who was Deputy Commissioner of Balaghat throughout the year 1906, is to the same effect. He says that Indraraj had a talk with him about the marriage of his son (the appellant), and that Indraraj asked him to persuade Mahipat Rao to admit that he had adopted the appellant. After this conversation Mr. Low saw Mahipat Rao, who said that he did not admit the adoption and could not bear the expenses of the appellant's marriage. On the 17th January, 1907, Indraraj wrote to Mahipat Rao saying that it was eight years since he had taken the appellant in adoption, and that the marriage ceremony of the appellant could not under any circumstances be postponed. On the 2