The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of estoppel and res judicata in determining the nearest reversionary heir to an estate, as well as the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act.

Curgenven, J.

1. The main question which this appeal raises is whether the plaintiff or the first defendant is the nearest reversionary heir to the estate of one Venkatakrishna Pillai who died on the 24th October, 1899 leaving considerable property in the Tanjore District. The following genealogical table illustrates the rival claims:

Kuttikalivaraya | _________________________________________ | | Venkatachala Chandrasekhara | | | ________________________ | | | Chinnayya Tirumalairaya Ramanuja | | | Venkataranga Tiruvengada Venkatachala | | | Venkatachala Gopalasami Tirunarayana | (Adopted) (1st Deft.) Alamelu Achi | ___________________________________ | | | Venkatakrishna Gopalaswami Chellam | Ramakrishna (Plaintiff).

2. It will be seen that the plaintiff, Ramakrishna Pillai, is the son of Venkatakrishnas sister, Chellam, while the first defendant claims to be the adopted son of one Venkatachala Pillai shown as an agnate belonging to another branch of the family. The left and right hand branches are referred to in the evidence as the Kannankulam and Koppayam branches respectively. The fact of this adoption is disputed and it is further disputed that the adoptive father was related to the last male holder in the manner shown in the table. The learned Subordinate Judge has upheld the first defendants claim upon each of these points and the plaintiff appeals.

3. On Venkatakrishnas death without issue the estate devolved for her life upon his mother, Alamelu Achi, who died on the 7th April, 1905. Thereupon the first defendant took possession of the property claiming as the next reversionary heir. At the time the plaintiff set up, not his own right, but a claim that his son Krishnaswami had been adopted by Alamelu Achi just prior to her death. This claim he succeeded in compounding with the first defendant by means of a deed of indenture under which the plaintiffs son received a certain amount of the property in exchange for the withdrawal of this claim, This document was executed in May, 1905 and it was not till 1917 that the plaintiff instituted the present suit. The issue with regard to the 1st defendants reversionary right is attended by two preliminary objections to the plaintiffs right to raise it, it is contended, in the first place, that he is precluded by reason of his subscription to the indenture referred to and secondly, it is said to be barred by res judicata.

4. The question of estoppel arises out of the following facts. In January, 1905, Alamelu Achi addressed a letter, (Ex. X) to the first defendant expressing a strong desire to adopt and inviting him to come and discuss the matter. It is clear that his consent was sought in the belief that he had a reversionary interest in the estate, a belief which, as the evidence will show, had been widely recognised by members of the family for a long period. The first defendant wrote back discouraging the idea but professing himself willing to discuss it. It is deserving of note that on getting this reply Alamelu Achi got the plaintiff, who was largely responsible for the management of her affairs, to consult Sir V. Bhashyam Aiyangar, their legal advisor (Exs. XXXVI and XXXVI-A). A further letter was then sent to the first defendant, Alamelu Achi explaining that she was desirous of consulting him as he was the most influential among the relatives. In reply the first defendant attributed her reference to him to his being the nearest dayadi and therefore of course the first person whose consent should be obtained, and in Alamelu Achis next letter, Ex. XI-A, she acknowledges that she wanted to obtain his permission as a gnati. With this letter, dated the 10th March, 1905, the correspondence ends. As has been said, Alamelu Achi died on the 7th April and on that very day the plaintiff telegraphed to the first defendant alleging that she had executed a will, and adopted his son Krishnaswami. He also sent telegrams to the same purport to two other persons as remoter dayadis. The