1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree dismissing their suit. In a joint suit filed by appellant 1, Ramchandra, claimed to be the adopted son of Tulsi, defendant 4, and appellant 2, Dagdaji, claimed to be a reversioner to Motya, the brother of Tulsi's husband, who was the last male holder. The two claims were in the alternative. The plea in defence was that Tulsi was incompetent to adopt a son to her husband as the inheritance vested in her after the death of her mother-in-law Putai. To elucidate this plea it is necessary to mention that one Punaji had two sons, Motya and Amruta. Putai was the wife of Punaji, and Tulsi, defendant 4, was the wife of Amruta. It appears that the scourge of the influenza epidemic of 1918 had levied its toll on this family as Punya died on 11th October 1918, Amruta died on 15th October 1918 and Motya died on 16th October 1918. There is a dispute as to the date of Putai's death which was material for the decision of the case. While the plaintiffs claim that she had died before Motya, the defendants pleaded that she died after Motya. The lower Court found that appellant 2 was not the reversioner and that Putai died after Motya. Hence a very important question of law arose for decision which was whether Mt. Tulsi, on whom the property devolved as a Gotraja Sapinda (being Motya's brother's widow) was competent to adopt a son to her husband so as to create any right in the property in favour of her adopted son ?. The lower Court answered the question in the negative following the ruling in 25 N.L.R. 144 Uttamrao v. Daulat,1929 116 IndCas 499. At a very late stage in the course of the litigation a plea was raised by Jairam, defendant 2, that Mt. Tulsi was too young at the time of adoption to understand the effect of adoption on her civil rights. No issue was formulated as to this contention, but the lower Court has accepted the defendant's contention.

2. On behalf of appellant 2, Dagdaji no substantial argument has been urged against the lower Court's finding that he was not the reversioner. In view of the meagre evidence on record there is hardly any scope for any effective argument. I have perused the evidence relevant to the issue and I fully concur with the lower Court in its finding. The next question is whether Mt. Putai died before or after Motya. It is not denied that Motya died on 16th October 1918. The oral evidence is not very impressive but the certified copies of the extracts from the Birth and Death Ragister and the Record of Rights undoubtedly show that Yasodi died on 18th October 1918. If, as Abhiman 1 D.W. 1 states, Putai died at Asadpur, then it is probable that the entry in Ex. 2 D-5 refers to Putai by her maiden name of Yasodi. The Record of Rights, Ex. 3 D-2, also shows that Tulsi, succeeded as heir to Putai, her mother-in-law. These two documents considered along with the admission of Abhiman (1 D.W. 1) that Putai died 10 or 12 days after Punaji fully goes to establish that she died after Motiram.

3. If Tulsi succeeded her mother-in-law in whom the property had vested on the death of her son Motya, the last male holder, she would become an heir in her capacity as a Gotraja Sapinda to Motya and not to her husband Amruta. The question is whether her adoption would have the effect of vesting inheritance in the adopted son. In 25 N.L.R 144 , it was held that such an adoption was void and of no effect on the principle that when a widow.succeeds on the termination of an intermediate estate, her power of adoption comes to an end as soon as the estate vests in the intermediate heir other than herself and does not revive even after the inheritance comes to be vested in her. The principle on which the decision rested was deduced from several decisions of the Privy Council which were supposed to lay down that the capacity to adopt was dependent on vesting of the property. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have examined the whole current of decisions in 12 Pat 642 Amarend