1. In the life-time of Raghunatha Bhattar, his son Srirangaraja died, leaving a widow and having by will authorized her to adopt a son. She accordingly in 1888 adopted the plaintiff after Eaghunatha had died leaving brothers who took as his heirs. Some of these assent to the adoption and are willing that the plaintiff should succeed to the office which he claims.
2. On the authority of the cases of which the leading one is Mussumat Bhoobun Moyee Debia v. Ram Kishore, 10 M. I. A., 279 we must hold that the plaintiff's claim by adoption fails. The adoption was not made to the last male holder and would, if valid, have the effect of divesting the estate taken on inheritance by Raghunatha's brothers, which estate includes the right to the office now claimed. An attempt was made to get over this difficulty by pleading that the brother's consent validated the adoption--but the decision in Annammah v. Mabbu Bali Ruddy, 8 M. H. C. R., 108 is against this view, and if the adoption was invalid we do not see how it can be validated by subsequent consent. Moreover, it does not appear that all the brothers consented.
3. We must allow the appeal. The decree must be reversed and the decree of the District Munsif restored.
4. Appellants must have their costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.