A suit for a declaration that an adoption is invalid or did not take place is governed by Article 118 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

S.P. Kotwal, JJ.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain alienations were not binding upon the plaintiffs (the first and second respondents) who were revisioners entitled to the property of one Moti Patil. the suit was decreed by the trial court and the legal representatives of the alienee are the appellants.

2. In order to explain the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Moti Patil, of whose estate they claim to be reversioners, it is necessary to set forth the following genealogical tree :-

The plaintiffs claimed that Moti Patil who was separate from his brothers died on 28-9-1912, leaving considerable movable and immovable property mentioned in Schedule A attached to the plaint. Moti Patil was twice married and his two wives were Sagni and Rukhi. By the first wife he had a daughter, Punai, and the plaintiffs Vithal and Santosh are the sons of Punai. Plaintiff No. 1 was alleged to have been bom on 16-9-1919. Mst. Punai, their mother, died in 1927. Moti Patils second wife Mst. Rukhi or Rukhmabai was the first defendant in the suit.

3. Moti Palil had three brothers, Zapri, Kesheo and Raghu. Kesheo died and his son Manikrao who was taken in adoption by Moti Patil also died. Raghu had a son called Hari, but both Raghu and Hari died before the date of suit. The third brother Zapri is also dead but he left behind three sons Mohan, Bapu and Dasru. It was this Bapu, the second son of Zapri, who, as is shown below, was alleged to have boon adopted by Moti Patil. Bapu was also dead on the date of suit and was represented by his widow Eega alias Gahena, the second defendant. It may at this stage also be noted that this lady Mst. Gahena was the sister of Mst. Rukhmabai, the second wife of Moti Patil and the first defendant in the suit.

4. The plaintiffs alleged that the entire property of Moti Patil was held and owned by his widow Mst. Rukhi as a life estate but that she acted all through in a manner most prejudicial to the right of the plaintiffs as reversicners; that she led a very luxurious life beyond her legitimate means, and without legal necessity incurred loans and alienated property in her possession; that she was under the influence of Bapu and incurred debts only in order to benefit him; and that the debts were imprudent and unnecessary. They also alleged that the creditors knew all the facts and, nevertheless continued to advance loans without justification.

5. The two alienations which they claimed were not binding upon the estate were a mortgage dated 11-7-1919 in favour of one Dhansing, and another mortgage dated 25-7-1929 (Ex. D-11) in favour of one Bhanji. The mortgage dated 11-7-1919 in favour of Dhansing, father of the original third defendant Tarachand, was for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. On the basis of this mortgage Tarachand had obtained a decree in Civil Suit No. 21 of 1932, in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 19-9-1935. With this alienation, however, we are not concerned in the present appeal because it appears that the trial Court had in its finding on preliminary issues, delivered on 7-8-1942, held that the suit for obtaining a declaration that this alienation was not binding upon the plaintiffs was barred by time and had discharged the third defendant from the suit. Against that finding; the plaintiffs did not appeal and therefore that finding has now become final.

6. The other alienation dated 25-7-1929 which was the subject of challenge in the suit and in this appeal was a mortgage executed by Mst. Rukhi and Bapu in favour of one Bhanji Kunbi for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Bhanji died after the alienation and defendants 4 to 7 (the present appellants) arc his sons.

7. This was the shape of the suit as it emerged after several amendments thereof by the plaintiffs. It will be noticed that in the amended plaint there is no reference whatsoever to any adoption.

8. In the original plaint the plaintiffs had alleged that because Rukhi was the sister