The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of adoption, conveyance through a release, and the plaintiff's right to rely on it in the present suit.

John Wallis, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot, dismissing a suit by the plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage Ex. VII executed by the senior widow of the last male owner on the 27th February 1875, and also for a declaration that a lease executed by her previously on the 28th October 1874 (Ex. XIII) is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiffs suit was based on the alleged adoption of his father by the junior widow of the last male owner in the year 1879. The last male owner died about the year 1850 and there is really no evidence of any authority given by him to his widow to make the adoption. Another question which arises is whether one widow could adopt without the consent of the other widow and then there is the question whether the adoption was made with the consent of the sapindas. On the latter question the Subordinate Judge has found that it is not shown that the adoption was made either with the consent of the senior widow or the sapindas. The next reversioner comes forward now as plaintiffs 1st witness and says that he was present and consented. But in 1890 he filed a suit to declare the adoption invalid and little weight attaches either to his testimony or to the testimony of the 3rd witness of the plaintiff whom the Subordinate Judge has not believed. We are therefore not prepared to interfere with the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the consent of the sapindas at the time of the adoption has not been proved. There is considerable evidence that many years later, the reversioners gave their consent to the transaction. But we are not prepared in the absence of authority to hold that such subsequent assent of the sapindas would validate the adoption. The doctrine of the consent of the sapindas validating an adoption which was laid down by the Privy Council in the Ramnad Case was based largely upon the custom prevailing in this part of India, rather than upon cited texts. A different custom prevails in Bombay and Bengal. We are not prepared in the absence of any evidence or authority to hold that the custom under which the consent of the sapindas is held to validate adoption can be extended to consent given long after the date of the adoption and we think that considerable inconvenience and uncertainty would result from giving the doctrine any such further development. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the question of the alleged failure of the senior widow to give her consent or the effect of her having subsequently given it. On this finding the plaintiffs case as originally laid in the plaint must fail.

2. The adoption was not proved. But in a supplemental written statement which he put in, he relied on a release (Ex. R) which was executed in his favour after the filing of the plaint by the person who was the right heir of the last male owner on the death of the junior widow in 1902, if there was no adoption of the plaintiffs father. That document was entered into between the plaintiff who with his father before him had been in possession of the estate for a great many years on the footing of the adoption and the person who was entitled to succeed in 1902 if there was no adoption. By that document the heir released all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. We cannot agree with the Subordinate Judge that Ex. R, does not purport to be and is not a conveyance. The word used is release but the intention to transfer any rights which the executant of the document has is clear and we see no sufficient reason why it should not be treated as a conveyance. The question next arises how far the plaintiff should be allowed to rely upon this title in the present suit. The matter was made the subject of an issue which was clearly in our opinion intended not only to raise the question whether he was entitled to put forward such a claim in this suit but also whether such a claim if put forward would be a good one. The Subordinate Judge held that Ex. R which was