(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain vatan property on the ground that he was the heir of the last male holder, one Bhogapa. The parties concerned are related in the manner shown in the following tree :- Krishnapa, son of Bhogapa died in April 1888. In 1899 Bhimabai, the defendant I, adopted a boy named Bhogapa, who in 1902 died unmarried. In 1904 Bhimabai made another adoption, this time of a boy named Jerav, the 10th defendant.
(2.) The only question which falls to be decided in this appeal is whether this second adoption by Bhimabai is valid or not. The contention for the plaintiff is that it is invalid, Bhimabai s power of adopting being at an end on the death of the first adopted son, Bhogapa.
(3.) As I have noticed, the property in suit is vatan property, and it is admitted that when the adopted boy Bhogapa died in 1902, the estate vested in the plaintiff as his heir. Was it competent to Bhimabai, two years later, to divest this estate of the plaintiff, and to vest it in the secondly adopted son ?