The 'lex loci' of the Central Provinces is the Benares School of Hindu Law.

1. This first appeal by the Plaintiff arises out of a suit for declaration that the Plaintiff is the adopted son of one Mahadeo Patil & for possession of the property left behind by him. Mahadeo Patil died on 28-4-1935 at 'mauza.' Khandarjhiri leaving behind two widows Mst. Anjana Bad and Mst. Laxmi Bai, Anjana Bai being the senior one. Anjana Bai had no issue while Laxmi Bai had only a daughter Mst. Shewanta Bai who was married to one Rambhau but she had no issue during the life time of Mahadeo Patil. It is common ground that disputes arose between the two widows after the death of Mahadeo, and Laxmi Bai instituted Civil Suit No. 16-A of 1938 against Anjana Bai for partition and it was decreed. Some valuable property was removed by Laxmi Bai in the absence of Anjana Bai and hence Anjana Bai was awarded Rs. 16,500/- in the partition decree that was passed on 21-3-1942. Anjana Bai attached in execution of that decree the property that had fallen to the share of Laxmi Bai but Anjana Bai died before it could be sold and the entire property was delivered to Laxmi Bai.

2. The Plaintiff's case is that the family of Mahadeo Patil was governed by the Bombay (Maharashtra) School of Hindu Law and that Mahadeo Patil had also given authority to adopt a son to him to his senior widow Anjana Bai, who accordingly adopted the Plaintiff-Appellant on 21-5-1942. The Plaintiff thus claims the property in dispute as the adopted son of Mahadeo Patil to the exclusion of the Defendant-Respondent.

3. The Defendant not only denied that Mahadeo Patil's family' was governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law but also the authority to adopt and pleaded express direction to his wives by Mahadeo Patil prohibiting them from adopting a son to him.

4. The trial Court found that the parties were governed by the Benares School of Hindu Law, that Mahadeo had not authorized Anjana Bai to adopt a son to him and that though there was no express prohibition yet there was implied prohibition issued by Mahadeo to his wives not to adopt a son to him. It also found that Anjana Bai had adopted the Plaintiff as a son to her deceased husband on 21-5-1942.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the finding of the lower Court that Mahadeo had not given authority to Anjana Bai to adopt a son to him is erroneous. This authority to adopt is said to be oral. The plaint does not mention the date on which it was given. (Their Lordships considered the evidence and proceeded:)

6. We are, therefore, convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the story that Mahadeo had given authority to Anjana Bai to adopt a son to him is not a true story at all.

7. We are also unable to believe the Defendant and her witnesses Pandurang (D.W. 4) and Raghunath (D.W. 5) when they say that Mahadeo at the time of his death prohibited his widows from making any adoption, because this story was not given in the written statement when it was filed on 10-4-1944 but was added subsequently on 30-9-1944 by an amendment of it.

8. The point that was very strenuously argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant was about the School of Hindu Law which governs the parties. He contended that the lower Court ought to have held that the deceased Mahadeo Patil had migrated from Watkheda in the Veotmal district to Pauni in the Nagpur district. The only witness who speaks about it is Mahadeo (P.W. 3) but his evidence, instead of supporting the Plaintiff-Appellant, goes against him. He says the deceased Mahadeo was his uncle but he does not know the common ancestor of his branch and the branch of Mahadeo Patil. He even does not know the place of residence of his great-grand-father and on the other hand he admits that "Jagoba of Pauni" is his family deity. This, suggests that the. family of the witness migrated from Pauni to Watkheda and not 'vice versa'. There is thus nothing, to suggest that the family of the deceased Mahadeo migrated to Pauni from Watkheda m Berar or from any other place in the Bombay