Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.
1. It is found that there was no authority to adopt, although a form of adoption under colour of an alleged authority may have been gone through.
2. The first and second defendants had, therefore, no authority to make alienations in favour of third defendant binding upon plaintiff, except for adequate family need or other purposes recognized by the law. Upon this point, it is found that, for the debts contracted, no such purposes existed.
3. It is contended in this second appeal that plaintiff is barred as to his claim to a declaration of the invalidity of the adoption.
4. But the question to be considered upon the Act for the Limitation of Suits is not whether a particular relief applied for is barred, but whether the suit is barred.
5. The suit is substantially a suit to declare the invalidity of the alienations so as to enable plaintiff to recover as reversioner on the death of the first and second defendants, and, as ancillary to that claim, he asks for a declaration as to the adoption; and, as the alienations were only made on 25th April 1878, the plaintiff would have twelve years from that date within which to bring his suit, and he is in time. We may refer upon this point to the decision of the Privy Council in Raj Bahadoor Singh v. Achumbit Lal L.R. 6 IndAp 110.
6. We dismiss the appeal with costs.