1. We think that the cause of action on which this suit was brought, as we read the plaint, was based on the fact that the 2nd defendant was adopted by the 1st defendant without due authority as the alleged authority of the sapindas other than the plaintiff, which was relied on by the widow (1st defendant), being alleged to be invalid under the rules of Hindu Law.

2. Now that the 2nd defendant is dead and that the 1st defendant is at present (whether we take the view contended for by the plaintiff or that contended for on behalf of the late 2nd defendant) a female heir owning a limited interest, the question of the validity of the adoption of the second defendant has to be decided merely for the purpose of considering whether the order as to costs made by the lower Court so far as that order is in favour of the 1st defendant in her individual right is supportable.

3. After hearing the appellants learned Counsel we see no sufficient reason to accept his contention that the authority, Exhibit I, given by the sapindas is legally invalid on the ground that it was expressed too generally, that is that it gave the 1st defendant authority to adopt any boy at any time she liked. Reli