Sundara Aiynr, J.

1. The argument in second appeal is that the 2nd defendant was adopted by Chinna Rangamma and that the adoption is valid as one made by a dancing girl. But the finding is that Chinna Rangamma was a married woman. It is not explained how she can be treated as a dancing girl. It is stated that as she belonged to the Bogum caste she could adopt a girl, whether she was a married woman or not. But no such custom is found to be established by either of the two Courts. I dismiss the second appeal with costs. I am not to be understood as conceding that an adoption made by a woman of the prostitute class would be valid at all.

Sadasiva Aiyar J.

2. I should like to add that I dissent with the greatest respect from the casein Vengu v. Mahalinga (1888) I.L.R. 11 M. 393. approve of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mathura Naiken v. Esu Naicken (1880) I.L.R. 4 B. 545. I am also clearly of opinion that it is not only illegal to adopt girls by prostitutes but the illegality is. if possible very much enhanced by a woman of the prostitute class who has followed the practices of a moral family Hindu woman trying to follow the practices of a prostitute herself and adopt