DIWAKAR Vs. CHANDANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this appeal is whether the late Mahipat Rao Bhau adopted the appellant Diwakar as his son, and heir to the Hatta Zamindari on the 10th November 1898. If the adoption did take place, the adoptive father could not subsequently revoke the adoption. It is not argued that he had any such power.

(2.) The appellant was born on the 26th October, 1898, and was the second son of Indraraj Bhau Mahipat Rao was a relation on the agnatic side and had had eight children by his deceased wife, all of whom had died in infancy, except Gotoo, who died in 1894 aged about I6. At the time of the alleged adoption Mahipat Rao had two young wives, one married in 1891, and one in 1895, There was no reason why he might not have further issue; two children were in fact born to him at a later date. Both Indraraj and Mahipat Rao were Zamindars of considerable position.

(3.) There was no deed of adoption and the case for the appellant depends almost entirely on oral testimony. The Judge of the District Court found in favour of the appellant. This judgment was reversed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces. In their Lordships opinion it is important to appreciate the general position of the parties and the surrounding circumstances before attempting to determine what weight should be attached to the evidence called on behalf of the plaintiff.