Ramesam, J - (1.)The finding about the adoption must be accepted. It was acted upon from 1867 to 1873 when the adopted boy died without being questioned by any relation. The reversioner, Ramachandra Sastri, lived only for three months after the death of Bhagirathi and it is not clear that he left a son or other reversioner who could! claim the property. It is true he left a widow but her inaction in not claiming the property is not inexplicable. The Subordinate Judge is right in presuming the authority for an adoption which took place in 1867 and which was not questioned.
(2.)It is next argued that Bhagirathi and her daughters prescribed only for a mother's and daughter's estates respectively and Ex. XVIII is relied on for this purpose. Ex. XVIII throws no light on the estate prescribed by Bhagirathi or Valambal. Even as to Abhirami Ammal, it is not clear that she claimed a daughter's estate. The utmost that can be said for the appellant is that the document is dubious.
(3.)Ex. XVIII is perfectly valid as a surrender. The conditions of a valid surrender, i. e., the self-effacement of the widow and the absence of a device by the widow to divide the estate with the reversioners are satisfied [see Sureshwar Misser v. Maheshrani Misrain (1920) ILR 48 C 100 at 108 : 39 MLJ 161 (PC) ]. The stipulation that the reversioners are to divide the property in shares different from what they would get as reversioners (3/5 and 2/5) does not make the surrender invalid.