Lord Russell of Killowen:-

This appeal is brought by some of the defendants to a suit in which one Modonomohono Naiko was the plaintiff. The suit, in form a suit for partition, was in reality brought for the purpose of establishing that the plaintiff, as the adopted son of one Horikrushno deceased, was entitled to succeed to the Sirdarship of Gondadharo which had been held and enjoyed by Horikrushno in his lifetime. After Horikrushno's death (which occurred on 5th April 1924), questions arose as to the succession, and as to whether the plaintiff was in fact the adopted son of the late Sirdar. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported adversely to the plaintiff's claim; but the Board of Revenue having considered the evidence then adduced, most properly thought that the question was too complicated for a Revenue Court to decide, and directed that the petitioner (i.e., the plaintiff) should establish his claim in a competent Civil Court. The present suit was accordingly instituted on 3rd August 1927, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur. The following pedigree shows the natural relationship of the parties :

The respondents to the present appeal are the plaintiff and defendants 3, 5 and 6. A claim had been set up by defendants 1, 2 and 4, that Dondopani (defendant 2) was the adopted son of the late Sirdar, but both Courts in India have rejected this claim, and it may be ignored. The relief sought by the plaint was the allotment to the plaintiff of one-sixth of the joint property possessed by the undivided Hindu family of which the common ancestor was Brundabono. Obviously, the share which the plaintiff claimed could only be his if he were in fact the adopted son of Horikrushno. Of the issues framed in the suit only two are now material, viz. (1) whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Horikrushno and (6) what are the respective shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the suit properties ? The Subordinate Judge found the first issue against the plaintiff. After a lengthy catalogue of the documentary and oral evidence, he states his decision in the following words :

On a consideration of the whole evidence, I am of opinion that plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden that is on him to prove his alleged adoption in 1909, and even in the view that in fact the adoption did take place in 1909, it is invalid inasmuch as evidence on record conclusively shows that plaintiff was married before the date of the alleged adoption.

That in substance constitutes the judgment on the first issue. As regards the 6th issue, he decided that defendants 5 and 6 belonged to a divided branch, but that they together with defendants 1, 2 and 4 (the widow being entitled by will to Horikrushno's share), were entitled to the shares agreed upon between the parties as evidenced by a certain document, Ex. 31. A decree, dated 30th March 1929, was made accordingly. From that decree, three appeals were presented to the High Court of Judicature at Madras; (1) by the plaintiff asserting his adoption; (2) by defendants 5 and 6, asserting their title to a quarter share each in the entire family property; and (3) by defendants 1 and 2 asserting the alleged adoption of Dondopani. Later, on the death of defendant 1, his other five sons (being with defendant 2, his legal representatives) were added as co-appellants in this third appeal.

The High Court (Cornish and Varadachariar JJ.) delivered a careful and closely reasoned judgment. They dismissed the third appeal. As regards the two other appeals, they held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Horikrushno, and that the shares in which the parties were entitled were as follows: One-sixth to the plaintiff as such adopted son, one sixth to defendant 1's branch, one-sixth to the third defendant's branch, and one-quarter each to the 5th and 6th defendants. A decree, dated 13th November 1935, was made accordingly. From that decree defendant 2 and the other legal representatives of Krupasin