Estoppels by representation.

Viswanatha Sastri, J.-The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the immoveable and moveable properties described in the plaint. The plaintiff’s claim was based on his adoption by the first defendant, widow of the deceased Depuru Rami Reddi, who was the original owner of the properties described in the plaint. It is common ground that Rami Reddi left a will, Exhibit P-1, dated 19th July, 1921, disposing of his properties in the manner therein set out. Rami Reddi was the owner of landed properties situated in the village of Mahimalur of which he was also the hereditary village headman. He had landed properties in other villages as well. He died on 25th July, 1921, leaving behind him his two widows, Venkamma and Kama-lamma. The first wife, Venkamma had been living apart from Rami Reddi for some years before his death and a separate provision for her maintenance had also been made by Rami Reddi during his lifetime. The will, Exhibit P-1 makes a provision for Kamalammal, the second wife of Rami Reddi and in favour of the child to be born to her who was enciente on the date of the execution of the will. There was also reference to succession to the estate by a son to be adopted to him in the event of failure of issue, either male or female, of Rami Reddi. A posthumous female child was born but died after a few days of its birth. The construction of this will, Exhibit P-1, viewed as an authority to his wife to adopt, has been the subject of a difference of opinion between the two Courts which have tried the suit but for the reasons which we shall state presently, it is not necessary to decide whether the view of the trial Court or that of the appellate Court is correct.

The plaintiff’s case is that, pursuant to the authority given to the first defendant by Rami Reddi, she adopted him and treated him as her adopted son. He therefore claims that he has succeeded to the estate of Rami Reddi as adopted son. The first defendant denies that she ever adopted the plaintiff. She also pleads that the will, Exhibit P-1, on its true construction and in the events that have happened, did not authorise the adoption. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the adoption was true in fact but invalid in law, and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge was of the opinion that Exhibit P-1 was of sufficient amplitude to permit of an adoption being made by the first defendant in the events that have happened but found against the truth of the adoption of the plaintiff by the widow of Rami Reddi. He commented upon the several infir-mative circumstances in the case and the serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the adoption set up by him and came to the emphatic conclusion that the adoption was not established. Mr. Veeraraghavan for the appellant tried to challenge this finding of fact of the learned District Judge but having considered the whole of the evidence we find it impossible to say that the finding is either erroneous in law or perverse. The case must therefore proceed on the footing that there was no adoption in fact.

The learned Advocate-General who appeared at an earlier stage of the case argued that whatever may be the ultimate decision of the Court as regards the truth or validity of the adoption in a suit between the adopted son and the reversioners to the estate of Rami Reddi, so far as the widow was concerned, she was personally estopped from disputing the truth and validity of the plaintiff’s adoption. This plea of estoppel is founded solely on certain admissions stated to have been made by the first defendant soon after the death of Rami Reddi. To these admissions we shall presently refer. Issues 6, 7 and 8 raise the question of estoppel but during the course of the trial before the learned Subordinate Judge, as stated in paragraph 36 of his judgment, the plaintiff’s counsel chose not to press the issues relating to es