( 1. ) THIS first appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the appellant Mst Anjubai and Mst. Gajjubai (plaintiff-respondent No. 31 in forma pauperis for possession of certain malik makbuza lands left by their brother Tatya Rao, who died in 1931.

( 2. ) AFTER the death of Tatya Rao in 1931, his widow Mst. Manjubai continued in possession of the suit lands till her death on 2-8-1950. She adopted respondent No. 1 Hemchandra Rao alias Madhukarrao. Respondent No. 2 Narayanarao Ka-dam is the natural father of Hemchandra Rao and the brother of Mst. Manjubai deceased.

( 3. ) THE plaintiffs case is that the property passed to them by inheritance after Mst. Manjubais death as the next roversioners of Tatya Rao. The claim of Hemchandra Rao as the adopted son of Mst. Manjubai is disputed on the ground that the ceremony of datta homam was not performed at the time and that the consent of Mst. Manjubai was brought about by undue influence practised by Narayan Rao, who was acting as her Mukhtyar and who was managing her property. Further, it was pleaded that Mst. Manjubai did not obtain the permission of her husband to effect the adoption and as the parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, the adoption is invalid. The adoption was also challenged on the ground that Hemchandra Rao being the brothers son of Mst. Manjubai could not be adopted by her.

( 4. ) THE defendants pleaded that the adontiori took place after performing the datta homam and the necessary ceremonies. It was admitted that the consent of Tatya Rao was not obtained to the adoption; but it was pleaded that such consent was not necessary, as the parties were governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law. It was denied that the adoption was procured by undue influence or that it was invalid on account of the relationship of Mst. Manjubai with Narayan Rao.

( 5. ) THE trial Court found that the adoption had taken place after performance of the datta homam; that it was not invalid on account of the relationship between the parties to the adoption; and that as the parties were governed by the Bombay School, the consent of Mst. Manjubais husband was not necessary. It also held that there was no undue influence practised by Narayan Rao in procuring the consent of Mst. Manjubai.

( 6. )

"the most important point arising in this appeal is whether the parties are governed by the Mitakshara School or whether they are governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law. They are Marathas and have settled in Chhatisgarh for a long time. The defendants case was that they had migrated from Satara district in Bombay Presidency. The defendants have examined several witnesses to prove the following facts:-- (i) that they are known as Marathas; (ii) that they are related to the Bhonslas of Nagpur; (iii) that they have relationship amongst Marathas only and mostly in the Marathi districts of Madhya Pradesh and some places in Bombay; (iv) that they speak Marathi language; (v) that their women adopt the Maharashtrian style of dress; and (vi) that they observe several festivals which are peculiar to the people residing in Maharashtra.

( 7. ) NARAVAN Rao (D. W. 1) and Lakhan Rao (D. W. 6) have stated that their ancestors came to Chhatisgarh about hundred years ago. Naturally, they have no personal knowledge about the fact of migration.

( 8. ) SHRI R K. Pandey for the appellant strenuously contends that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the fact of migration or that the defendants are governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law. It is settled law that there is a presumption that parties residing in a particular area are governed by the lex loci unless migration is proved. The burden of proving that the family came from some other tract and is therefore governed by some other branch of Hindu law is on the party which asserts it. Thus, in Balwant Rao v. Baii Rao, 1. 0 Nag LR 187 : (AIR 1921 PC 59) it has been observed:

"of course, if nothing is known about a man except th