The central legal point established is that in adoption cases, the performance of essential ceremonies and the passing of consideration in property transactions are crucial for validity.

Bose—This is a suit for possession of certain properties consisting of fields and a house site. Both sides are agreed that the property originally belonged to one Trimbak. The Plaintiff claims title to it as follows: Trimbak died in 1937 leaving a widow Girjabai, a mother (Defendant 1), and two daughters (Defendants 2 and 3). On 20th January 1938 Girjabai adopted Defendant 6 Shankar to her husband Trimbak. The adoption was followed by an adoption deed (Ex.P-4) executed on the same day. On the following day (2lst January 1938) the adopted son Shankar transferred a pare of Trimbak's property to the Plaintiff by a sale deed (Ex. P-3). This was followed by an exchange deed executed on 22nd January 1938 for the purpose of rectifying certain mistakes in the sale deed. The Plaintiff bases his title on these two deeds and the adoption of Shankar. The Defendants challenge the adoption and also challenge the transfer by Shankar to the Plaintiff. It is important to note at this stage exactly what the challenge is. So far as the adoption is concerned, the Defendants said (1) that Trimbak had expressly prohibited his widow from adopting and (2) that in any case she was only 13 years old at the time, and so had not attained years of discretion. The first Court found against the Defendants on both these points, and that finding was not challenged before me by either side; nor does it Appear to have been challenged in the lower appellate Court.'' It was argued before me- and that also seems to have been the position taken up in the first Court at the argument stage- that the factum of adoption was also challenged ; but the words used in the written statement are: It is denied that thirteen years old Mt. Girja took thirty years old Shankar in adoption with due rites and ceremonies as stated by the Plaintiff.

2. This is ambiguous. One does not know whether the factum of adoption is admitted and only its validity challenged on the ground that the due rites and ceremonies were not performed, or whether this is a general denial of the factum, or whether both the factum and the validity for want of due ceremonies are challenged. Also if the intention was to challenge the adoption for want of due ceremonies it is not disclosed which ceremonies are lacking. Such a vague pleading ought not to have been allowed; but quite apart from the fact that it was allowed we find here again oral statements in flagrant disregard of the rules of pleading, the Code of Civil Procedure Code, and the repeated protests of this Court. The issue drawn by the Court is equally vague. It runs: ''Whether Defendant 6 was taken in adoption by Girji as a son to her husband according to Hindu law ?'' Nobody said a word about Hindu law in the pleadings. What the plaint said and the written statement denied was that the adoption took place ''after performing the due ceremonies in accordance with the Hindu Dharmashastras.'' The two are not the same; for in the ease of Sudras no religious ceremonies are necessary: the mere giving and taking are enough. In a Privy Council case reported in 2. Knapp 287(1) Lord Wynford said that the performance of any religions ceremony is not essential to the validity of adoption. This was accepted by the Privy Council in, so far as Sudras are concerned. It was also accepted in a recent decision of their Lordships In this last, case their Lordships held that it was enough to constitute the ceremony of giving and taking for the natural father of the boy, and the adoptive mother, and the boy, to be present before the Sub-Registrar and admit execution of a deed of adoption setting forth the giving and the taking, to the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, in a case of Sudras, if a party merely denies that religious rites and ceremonies were not performed he merely alleges that something unessential to the adoption was omitted. That naturally carries his case no further.

3. It was contended here that the Plaintiff in a case of adoption must plead that all cere