Spencer, J.

1. I have had the advantage of seeing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. On the questions of fact I have nothing to add to what he will state beyond expressing my entire agreement with his conclusions. On the two questions of law arising out of the 5th and 6th points I wish to express my concurrence with his opinion. His opinion on the 5th point agrees also with that of Ramesam, J., in Anne Brahmayya v. Chelasami Rattayya (1922) 20 L.W. 503. I agree with them in respectfully dissenting from the view expressed by Oldfield, J., in Viswasundara Rao v. Somasundara Rao (1920) I.L.R. 43 M. 876 to the effect that the class of sapindas, whose consent should be obtained by a widow in order to supply the authority lacking in consequence of her husband having died without authorising her to adopt a son, is limited to agnates. In the judgment of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Kristnayya v. Lakshmipathi (1920) I.L.R. 43 M. 650 : 30 M.L.J. 265 (P.C.) the Smrithi of Yajnavalkya, which is the basis for the theory that a woman, who has no husband, father or sons, needs the advice of those who are her natural protectors, is quoted.

2. Let her father protect a maide