JUDGMENT

Rau, J. - This appeal is by defendant 1, Surabala, and defendant 2, her adopted son, Jayanta alias Suhrid, in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to have the adoption of defendant 2 by defendant 1 set aside as invalid and for certain other reliefs. Both the Courts below have set aside the adoption while refusing the other reliefs.

2. Two points are raised by the appellants before us. First, it is said that the plaintiff's interest in the property held by defendant 1, Surabala, is too shadowy to enable him to obtain a declaration of the invalidity of the adoption under s. 42, Specific Belief Act. The argument is that the position of the latter in respect of that property is not that of a Hindu widow with limited powers but that of a trustee with full powers of disposal, so that if she exercises them the plaintiff as reversioner can get nothing. Now, it is true that so far as the property was derived from her father-in-law, her position is that of a trustee, what her powers under the trust deed may be we need not discuss. But according to the trial Court a portion of the property, however small, came to her by inheritance from her husband; if so, the plaintiff's reversionary interest at least in respect of this portion cannot be ignored. To get over this difficulty, the appellants point to the lower appellate Court's finding that there is nothing on record to show what property, if any, was left to her by her husband. It is to be noted however that the point now raised before us was not taken at the trial. Had it been taken the plaintiff might have produced enough evidence to satisfy even the lower appellate Court. In these circumstances this point must be decided against the appellants.

3. I now come to the main question involved in this appeal, the question, namely, whether according to the law amongst Hindus in Bengal a young man of one of the regenerate castes can be validly adopted after his upanayan ceremony (investiture with the sacred thread) has been performed in the family of his birth. In the present case the young man concerned is a Brahmin; his age at the date of adoption was 26, and his thread ceremony had, of course, already been performed.

4. On questions relating to adoption, the Dattaka Chandrika and the Dattaka Mimamsa are equally respected all over India, and where these are in conflict, the doctrine of the former is said to prevail in Bengal: ('67-69) 12 M.I.A. 397 : 1 Beng. L.R. 1 : 10 W.R. 17 : 2 Sar. 361 : 2 Suther. 135 (P.C.), Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga. On the particular point now before us, these two authorities are not in conflict.

5. First as to the Dattaka Chandrika; the relevant rules are in paras. 20-33 of S. 2 of Sutherland's translation.

6. Paragraph 20 lays down that the samskaras or sacraments which have not been performed by the natural father must be performed by the adopter, but not those already performed. Paragraphs 21 and 22 explain the reason and the object of this rule. Then follows para. 23:

And accordingly, if the rite of investiture merely be performed, the filiation of the son given, as son of the adopter, is completed in conformity with the text of Vasistha subjoined....

The meaning is evidently that the sacraments previous to investiture (upanayana) such as tonsure, need not be performed by the adopter; it is sufficient if he performs that upanayana ceremony. This is enough to complete the filiation. Paragraph 24 deals with the dwyamushyayana son and is not relevant to the present discussion. Paragraph 25 cites certain verses reputed to be from the Puranas (the reference is doubtless to the Kalika Purana) and winds up with the remark that they are unauthentic. In paras. 26-28 the author goes on to say that even if the verses are regarded as authentic, the interpretation usually put upon them is incorrect and he proceeds to indicate two alternative interpretations. As one of these throws some light on the author's views on the question now before us, it deserv