The adoption of Haripada by Mahesh was perfectly valid. The rule that no one can be adopted, whose mother the adopter could not have legally married, is confined to the specific instance of a daughters son, sisters son & mothers sisters son, and, marriages, though disapproved on moral grounds, are valid in law.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal, from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing his suit.

2. Three questions of law have been raised by Mr. R. S. Chatterjee, in support of the appeal; all of which turn on the construction of the compromise decree, dated the 6th February, 1928, passed in Title Suit 1 of 1927, brought by Girish Chandra Sarkhel, father of defendants 1 to 4, and, grandfather of defendants 5 to 7, against Kailash Basini; widow of Mahesh Chandra Sarkhel, in respect of the properties, which admittedly belonged to Mahesh, and, to which suit Haripada, the son of the present plaintiff, and, the adopted son of Mahesh, was also a party.

3. The questions of law which, therefore, arise for determination on the present appeal, are:

1. Whether the above, mentioned compromise decree operates as res judicata in the present suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from maintaining the present suit in view of the aforesaid decree?; and

3. Whether the adoption of Haripada, who was cousin sisters sons daughters son of Mahesh, was valid in law?

4. As these questions arise out of, and, are based on, the decree passed in Title Suit 1 of 1927, it is necessary to state some facts relating to this suit as briefly as possible.

5. Mafar and Jagat were own brothers, Jagats son was Girish, the father, and, grandfather of the present defendants. Mafar had a son Gangaram, whose son was Mahesh, whose widow was Kailash Basini Debl Mahesh adopted Haripada, son of Chandi Gharan Bandopadhaya, the present plaintiff in 1918, Haripada married Shib Bala. Mahesh died in 1926, and his widow Kailash Basini died after him.

6. Mahesh was the original owner of the lands in dispute, and, in respect of the disputed land Haripada, the adopted son of Mahesb, and, the natural son of the present plaintiff, was recorded in the record of rights.

7. In 1927, after the death of Mahesh in 1926, Girish, the uncle of Mahesh, and, the nearest rever sioner of his properties, brought a title suit, which was registered as Title Suit 1 of 1927, against Kailash Basini Devi, the widow of Mahesh, claiming; the properties of Mahesh, on the ground that Kailash Basini was a leper, and, as such, she was not entitled to inherit the properties of her husband.

8. On the 26th February, 1927, the present plaintiff, on behalf of his natural son Haripada, who was then a minor filed a petition (Ex. B), in the above suit, for Haripada being added as a party to the suit, on the ground that Haripada was the adopted son of Mahesh. On the same day, the present plaintiff also swore an affidavit (Ex. K) in support of his above application. Haripada, accordingly, was added as defendant 2 to the suit.

9. Kailash Basini, the original defendant, also in her written statement (Ex. G) had raised the question of non-joinder of Haripada on the ground that he was the adopted son of her husband, Mahesh. On the 5th March, 1927, the plaint was amended by Girish, the plaintiff, as per petition (Ex. 3), and, he challenged the adoption of Haripada, as being invalid in law; firstly, because Mahesh was a leper, and, secondly, because Haripadas mother was the niece of Mahesh.

10. The written statement, Ex. C(1), on behalf of Haripada, the newly-added minor defendant 2, was filed on the 28th April 1927, and, verified by the present plaintiff. In the suit, Haripada, being a minor, was represented throughout by his natural father, the present plaintiff, who acted as his guardian and next friend.

10-A. The suit was thereafter referred to arbitration, and, before the arbitrator, the suit was compromised, and, the arbitrator made an award that the Suit should be decreed in terms of the compromise. In the compromise, the present plaintiff, represented Haripada, and, he, on his behalf, entered into the compromise. On the 6th February 1928, the suit was decreed by the Court in terms of the compromise, the Judgment of which is Ex, D. The decree, which is Ex. E, shows that Haripada