The main legal point established in the judgment is that the datta homam ceremony is not essential for the adoption of a daughters son in a Brahmin family, based on historical decisions and texts.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question which falls for decision in this case is whether the performance of the datta homam ceremony is essential when a Brahmin adopts the son of his daughter. Natesa Aiyar, the brother of the first, appellant, adopted the respondent, the son of his only daughter. Natesa Aiyar was joint with his brother and his brothers son, the second appellant. Natesa Aiyar died on the 23rd September, 1929, and the respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises on the 22nd January, 1930, for partition of the family properties. The appellants denied the factum of adoption and advanced the alternative plea that if the respondent had been adopted, the adoption was invalid as the datta homam ceremony had not been performed. They also averred that if the respondents adoption was valid, the partition of the family estate was not for his benefit. The District Munsif of Kumbakonam, who tried the suit, held that the adoption had taken place, but the datta homam ceremony had not been performed. As the District Munsif considered that the ceremony was not necessary for a valid adoption and being of the opinion that the suit was for the benefit of the respondent he granted the decree prayed for. The appellants appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who concurred in all the. findings of the District Munsif. The appeal to the Subordinate Judge having failed, the appellants have appealed to this Court. The findings of fact of the Subordinate Judge are conclusive and the only question which we have to decide is whether the performance of the datta homam ceremony was essential in this case, the family being of the Brahmin caste.

2. By the decision of the Privy Council in Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit (1915) 29 M.L.J. 34 : L.R. 42 IndAp 135 : I.L.R. 39 Bom. 441 , it has now been finally settled that the datta homam ceremony is not necessary when the adoption is of a Brahmin boy of the same gotra. I shall return to the judgment in that case presently; but before doing sol desire to trace the course of decisions in this Province. In Singamma v. Ramanujacharlu (1868) 4 M.H.C.R. 165, it was held that in order to establish a valid adoption in a Brahmin family proof of the performance of datta homam was not essential; proof of the giving and taking-was sufficient. In that case it was not known whether the adopted boy was or was not of the same gotra, and the decision must, therefore, be taken to apply to the adoption of a boy of a different gotra. This decision was followed by Kindersley and Muttuswamy Aiyar, JJ., in Chandramala v. Muktamala I.L.R. (1882) 6 Mad. 20, which related to an adoption by a Kshatriya. Muttuswamy Aiyar, J., however, observed that if the question whether religious ceremonies were essential to adoption were res Integra, he would have felt considerable difficulty in holding that the ceremony of datta homam was not of the essence of a valid adoption among the three higher classes. The same doubt was expressed in the judgment of Turner, C. J. and Muttuswamy Aiyar, J., in Venkata v. Subhadra I.L.R.(1884) 7 Mad. 548. In Govindayyar v. Dorasami I.L.R.(1887) 11 Mad. 5 , a Full Bench, consisting of Collins, C.J. and Kernan, Muttuswamy Aiyar, Brandt and Parker, JJ., held that the ceremony of datta homam was not essential to a valid adoption among Brahmins in Southern India when the adoptive father and son belonged to the same gotra. To that extent the Court felt it might adhere safely to the decision in Singamma v. Ramanujacharlu (1868) 4 M.H.C.R. 165. It did not expressly say that that decision went too far and therefore, it cannot be said that the decision was overruled, but the doubts apparently still existed.

3. The case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit (1915) 29 M.L.J. 34 : L.R. 42 IndAp 135 : I.L.R. 39 Bom. 441 related to an adoption from the same gotra and in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, Lord Shaw observed:

The question whether the datta homam is a lega