Phillips, J.

1. In this case the appellant is the widow of one Chenchu Ranga who died in 1902, leaving a will, Ex. U. Reddi. Under this will he made certain bequests to his brothers wife and sister and left the rest of his estate to his widow with absolute rights. He also gave authority to the widow to adopt a son if she wished. It has been found by the lower Court that she exercised this power and adopted defendant on 2nd April 1911. The factum of adoption has been disputed, but, apart from oral evidence which has been believed by the lower Court, there are several documents in which the plaintiff has mentioned the fact of adoption, namely Ex. 1 to V, J, X and XVI series. Of these the only registered document is Ex. J. Ex. X and X (a) show that in 1918 a lawyers notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff in which the adoption is referred to. D. W. 9 is the High Court vakil who issued this notice, and he asserts that the plaintiff informed him of the adoption and asked the notice to be issued. The only evidence on the plaintiffs side is. as would be expected, negative evidence, that is to say, that from 1911 to 1920 she executed a number of documents in her own name and no