The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of foreign judgments affecting status and succession, and the application of personal law in determining succession to immovable property for Hindus domiciled outside British India.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. In this appeal the Court is called upon to decide the question whether a foreign judgment declaring the respondent to be the adopted son of a Hindu widow is binding on the Court in a suit relating to immovable property. On the 26th April, 1891, one Calve Sadasiva Chetti, a French citizen, died in Pondicherry leaving a widow, but no issue. The deceased was a man of considerable wealth and had immovable properties in Pondicherry and in the Madras Presidency. By a will and a codicil dated the 25th July, 1889 and 20th May 1891, respectively, the deceased directed that the bulk of his estate should be devoted to charitable purposes and he appointed five executors and trustees. The will and the codicil were proved both in Pondicherry and in this Court by four of the trustees, but one of them, Calve Krishnaswami Chetti, refused to join in, and in 1892 instituted proceedings in Pondicherry for the removal of the trustees who had proved the will. As the result of this action the trustees were removed in 1906 and fresh trustees were appointed. The final decision was given by the Court of Cassation in Paris. There was also litigation in Pondicherry with regard to the validity of the will and this led in 1917 to a declaration by the French Courts that the will was invalid and that Vasavambal Ammal, the widow, took the Pondicherry assets as on an intestacy. On the 12th December, 1906, Vasavambal Ammal executed in Madras a deed by which she purported to adopt the second respondent. It is said by the appellants that this adoption was invalid as the widow had no authority to adopt. In fact they say that the will should be construed as embodying a prohibition against adoption. They also say that the widow was induced to sign the adoption deed under pressure from the trustees who were removed by the decree passed in Pondicherry. The deed of adoption was registered in Pondicherry and the French Courts have held the respondent to be the adopted son of Calve Sadasiva Chetti and also of Vasavambal Ammal. I will return to the decision of the French Courts later, but as there has been considerable litigation with regard to the estate in this Court it will be convenient first to refer to the suits in Madras.

2. On the 19th February, 1908, the respondent who was then about four years of age instituted, through Vasavambal Ammal as his next friend, suit No. 49 of 1908 of this Court for a declaration that he was the lawfully adopted son of Calve Sadasiva Chetti and that the will was in consequence invalid. On this basis he asked that he be given possession of the Madras properties. On the 24th November, 1908, this suit was withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. In 1910, the persons who were appointed trustees as the result of the suit filed in Pondicherry by Calve Krishnaswami Chetti in 1892, filed suit No. 312 of 1910 of this Court for a declaration that the respondents adoption by Vasavambal Animal was invalid and for possession of the properties situated in Madras. The defendants in this suit were three of the four trustees who had been removed, Krishnaveni Ammal (the respondents natural mother), Vasavambal Ammal and the respondent. The fourth trustee had died in the meantime. This suit was tried by Sir John Wallis who was then a puisne judge of this Court. Sir John Wallis held that the adoption of the respondent by Vasavambal Ammal was invalid as it was contrary to the provisions of the will and also because the nearest sapinda had not been consulted. Accordingly he directed that the properties in the Madras Presidency should be handed over to the plaintiffs. An appeal (O.S.A. No. 72 of 1913) was filed against this judgment and was heard by Abdur Rahim and Phillips, JJ. Abdur Rahim, J., held that the Pondicherry Court had no power to remove the trustees appointed by the Madras Court in respect of immovable properties situated in Madras and in order to remove the old trustees a