Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Rajah of Pittapur who claims to be the next reversioner to the Gollaprolu Estate for a declaration that the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and that it does not affect his rights either as reversioner under Hindu Law or as the Zamindar of Pittapuram entitled to a vested reversion in the Gollaprolu Estate on the death of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the widow of Venkat Rao, the last male holder of the Zamindari who died issueless on the 4th of November 1871 and the 2nd defendant is the son adopted by the 1st defendant on the 15th of February, 1914.

2. The Gollaprolu Estate at one time formed part of the Pittapuram Zamindari and was granted by Gangadhara Rama Rao, the then Zamindar, to his brother Venkat Rao, by a grant filed in this case as Ex. O, dated the 8th of December, 1869. Venkat Rao died issueless on the 4th of November 1871 leaving two widows - the 1st defendant and one Venkayamma who died in 1889 - and the 1st defendant who is the sole surviving widow continued in possession and enjoyment of the estate. She made an adoption of her sisters son on the 18th of August 1886 alleging that her husband authorized her to adopt. The plaintiffs father who was then the Zamindar filed O. Section No. 30 of 1886, disputing the adoption on the ground that no authority was given to her by her husband and also on the ground that her husband had no power to authorize an adoption as he had renounced any power to adopt by an agreement entered into between him and the plaintiff on the 8th of December, 1869. The Subordinate Judge decreed for the Rajah and held that she had no authority from her husband. On the question as to the effect of the agreement, he held that such an agreement would not preclude an adoption. An appeal was preferred to the High Court and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was confirmed on the 22nd of September 1891 (see judgment, Ex. SSSS. 4). The 1st defendant made a second adoption in 1914 and that is the adoption which is now in dispute. The following genealogical table, the correctness of which is admitted, sets out the relationship between the parties.

3. The genealogical table given below shows the relationship of the parties concerned in this litigation and will serve to elucidate some of the questions raised.

4. On the death of the second widow of Venkat Rao, the late Rajah of Pittapur filed O.S. No. 12 of 1889 to recover one-half of the Gollaprolu estate on the ground that the estate reverts to him in default of the grantee having no male issue. The suit was dismissed on the 28th of September 1891. Ex. TTTT-1 is the judgment.

5. The Rajah of Pittapur who was himself issueless adopted Ramakrishna the natural father of the 2nd defendant in this suit on the 28th of September 1873. Ex. T is the document evidencing the adoption. There was bitter ill-feeling between the late Rajah and his adopted son Ramakrishna for some years before the Rajas death in July 1890. On the 5th of October 1885 the plaintiff in this suit was born. Ramakrishna was disputing the plaintiffs legitimacy and on the death of his adoptive father, Gangadhara, he filed O.S. No. 6 of 1891 to recover the Pittapur estate. His case was that the Ranee never gave birth to the Plaintiff, that he was a child who was introduced into the palace and that the adoptive father owing to bitter enmity with him, got this child introduced into the Zenana and proclaimed it to be his son by Mangayamma, the Ranee. It is also alleged that the Rajah owing to physical infirmities was impotent. The defence to that suit was that the present plaintiff was the legitimate son of the Rajah and that he was entitled to succeed to the Zamindairi by virture of a will executed by the late Rajah. After a protracted enquiry during the course of which several doctors and experts were examined as also several persons connected with the