This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 12th January, 1945, reversing a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dated 11th August, 1943.

By an Order in Council, dated 19th February, 1946, the appellant was granted special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, leave to appeal having been refused by the High Court on the ground that the case did not fulfil the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure as to value. On the hearing of this appeal the respondent took the preliminary objection that the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal did not amount to Rs. 10,000 and that leave to appeal should not have been given. The respondent had appeared on the petition for leave to appeal when the question of value was fully debated. The Order in Council did not reserve liberty to the respondent to raise this matter again at the hearing and in their Lordships’ opinion the preliminary objection is not now open.

The substantive question raised in the appeal is whether the respondent was validly adopted by one Chinnamadappa. The matter involves two questions. The first whether there was an adoption in fact, and the second, if there was an adoption, whether it was rendered invalid by the circumstances, alleged by the appellant but denied by the respondent, that the respondent at the time of the adoption was a married man. The Subordinate Judge answered these questions in favour of the appellant; the High Court answered them in favour of the respondent.

The material facts are these:-

Chinnamadappa and his elder brother Muthirulappa, and the appellant, who is the only son of Muthirulappa were members of a Joint Hindu family. Chinnamadappa had a daughter, the second defendant in this suit, who has since died, but no son. The respondent is the son of Arunachala who had married a sister of Chinnamadappa. The parties are Sudras. It is alleged by the respondent, but denied by the appellant, that on 19th October, 1934, a ceremony took place at which the respondent was validly adopted by Chinnamadappa. At this time the respondent was a grown up man; he himself put his age at about twenty-three or twenty-four, and the learned Subordinate Judge thought that he was somewhat older. On 3rd November, 1934, Chinnamadappa executed a deed of adoption (Ex. D. 1) before the Sub-Registrar. The deed recites that the respondent, the younger son of Arunachala was taken in adoption by Chinnamadappa on 19th October, 1934, with the consent of Chellamuthu the elder uterine brother of the respondent according to law and according to Shastras. The deed was signed by Chinnamadappa, and there were six witnesses, including Muthirulappa and Chellamuthu, but not including Arunachala. The deed was duly registered on 6th November, 1934. Chinnamadappa died in December, 1934.

On 20th July, 1936, the respondent presented a petition to the Tahsildar of Kamudhi alleging his adoption by Chinnamadappa, and that he and Muthirulappa were enjoying the family properties as a joint family, and praying that the name of the petitioner might be included as a joint pattadar of the properties mentioned and that the patta might be issued in his name and the name of Muthirulappa. In answer to this petition Arunachala made a statement [Ex. P. 7(c)] before the Tahsildar in which he said that he had not given the respondent in adoption to Chinnamadappa, that the respondent and Chellamuthu were living in his family-alone, that he did not know anything about the adoption deed, and that he and his two sons were living together though separated, and that the respondent was then thirty-five years old.

On 18th April, 1938, Arunachala filed two petitions [Exs. P. 3 and P. 3 (a),] one before the Tahsildar of Kamudhi, Ramnad Estate, and the other before the Revenue Officer, Southern Circle, Ramnad Estate. In both the petitions, which are in similar terms, Arunachala stated that he did not give the respondent in