1. Only two points have been raised in this appeal. The first is that even if Gopi Nath was not a validly adopted son, he was entitled to succeed under the will. We are unable to accept this contention, for we are of opinion that the view taken by the Courts below as regards the true interpretation of the will is correct. It was clearly intended that the property would go to Gopi Nath if he were duly adopted.
2. The next contention is that the view of the Courts below that the adoption was invalid because it took place after the performance of the janeo ceremony of Gopi Nath is not sound. It is urged that this view is based on a passage in Kalika Puran which has been considered as spurious by some jurists. The learned advocate for the appellant admits that the authority in the case of Ganga Sahai v. Lekhraj Singh  9 All. 253, is against him. But he cites a passage from Dr. Sarkar's Tagore Law Lectures, 1888, pages 362 and 363 (2nd edition), where the ruling of this Court has been criticized. We are wholly unable to accept the appellant's contention; The view of the law laid down in the case of Ganga Sahai v. Lekhraj Singh  9 All. 253 has prevailed for a long number of years in this Court and we are bound to follow it. We may further point out that the view is not necessarily based on the passage in Kalika Puran which has been disputed. The Dattaka Mimamsa, which is a treatise of high authority in the Benares school, has been recognized by the Privy Council as having acquired by long acceptance an independent authority: Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh  21 All. 412 at page 419. Even according to the Dattaka Mimamsa the performance of the upanayana (the janeo ceremony) is an absolute bar to the adoption. We accordingly dismiss the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.