The central legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of the adoption due to the minor age of the widows and the lack of evidence of authority given by the deceased husband.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The defendants NOS. 1 and 2 are the appellants. The tenth defendant is the natural father of the 1st defendant, The plaintiff is the widow of a Sourasthra Brahmin, Sundararamier, who died in April 1906, when he was about 22 or 23 years old. The plaintiff was the second wife whom he had married, when she was a girl aged about 12 years. The marriage took place only 17 days before his death, though he had already another girl-wife, the second defendant, living. The tenth defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiffs husband. The plaintiffs husband seems to have been a wild young man who, as soon as he attained majority, about 1902, demanded partition from his elder brother and obtained his share of the ancestral property, worth about Rs. 50,000. Since then, he seems to have been addicted to strong drink (foreign liquors) and, as I said already, he died when he was comparatively young. The plaintiffs case is that the death was sudden and that it was accused by heavy drinking.

2. The case of the first defendant and his natural father, the tenth defendant, is that while plaintiffs husband was doubtless addicted to drink, he also suffered from ever for about a week before his death and the direst cause of the death was the fever. It has, however, to be remarked that, though he was a rich man, no medical attendance worth the name seems to have been secured for his treatment during his alleged illness. He died at about 10 P.M. and the body was cremated next morning. Shortly before his cremation, the tenth defendant gave the first defendant in adoption to the plaintiff and to her co-widow. Both are girls of 12 who had not attained puberty, and the evidence is that, after the adoption, the funeral ceremonies of the deceased were performed by the tenth defendant for his natural son, the first defendant. Shortly afterward, another adoption was alleged to have taken place of another boy, the eon of a brother of the tenth defendant, (which brother, Vencatachallapatty, had been adopted away to an agnate), The first defend-was about a year old at his adoption and the other boy seven or eight years old. Quarrels arose soon after between the natural fathers of the two adopted boys, and in July 1906 the natural fathers, acting for their respective sons, divided the moveables and some other properties between themselves under the lists. A and B. Then, in August 1907 the plaintiffs father and guardian, gave notice to the tenth defendant demanding possession of the moveables of the plaintiffs husband which the tenth defendant was in possession of on behalf of the first defendant. This notice, of course, ignored the adoption of the first defendant.

3. Then, in October 1907, the plaintiffs father, who seems to have been a man of no property, (and who did not sample to give his daughter as second wife to a dissipated young man while the first wife was living), executed the agreement, Exhibit I, on her behalf, the other party to the agreement being the tenth defendant acting on behalf of the first defendant. Under this agreement, plaintiffs father gave up, on behalf of the plaintiff, all right to question the adoption of the first defendant, on plaintiff beings allowed a monthly allowance of Rs. 14 with a house to live in and with, the use of certain vessels and jewels. That maintenance was received by him on behalf of the plaintiff till she attained majority, which was about 1912. Then she herself received that maintenance till April 1915, Then she was advised that tie might repudiate the factum of adoption and she might also contend that, even if the adoption took place, it was legally invalid. So she brought this suit in pauper forming October 1910 en behalf of herself and her co-widow, the second defendant, for possession or most of the immoveable properties left by her husband excluding one dwelling house. (It is not clear why that dewelling house has been left out. It may be that, as suggested, the reason is that the