Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The appeal is by defendant 4 and 5 and the only point for determination is as regards the validity of the adoption of the plaintiffs father by defendant, 1 to her husband in the year 1884. The fact that there was an adoption and that the requisite ceremonies were performed has not been questioned and the only ground on which the validity of the adoption has been sought to be attacked in appeal is that at the time of the adoption, the defendant 1 was only about 12i years, and, therefore, not capable of forming a proper judgment about the act of adoption with regard to her own interests and the estate. On the evidence adduced before the learned Judge in the Court below, he has come to the conclusion that she was a person fairly well educated even at that time and capable of forming an opinion with regard to the intended act on her own interests and with regard to her husbands estate. The adoption has been practically acquiesced in and treated as valid from that time and every near relation and everybody concerned has agreed in treating the adoption as valid. There has been no evidence let in on behalf of the appellants to show that the girl when makin