1. We think the decision of the Court below was right. In view of the conflicting evidence as to whether an adoption actually took place or not at the time when Exhibit B was executed in 1896, great importance attaches to the conduct of the parties between that time and the date of Siva Subuddhi's death in 1903. The defendant's case is that after Exhibit B, Siva Subuddhi had nothing to do with the boy, yet we find he was entered in the school register against the boy's name under the heading of Parent or Guardian,' thus showing that he was the person to whom the authorities looked for payment of the fees and treated as being in loco parentis. We think it very improbable that, if there had been no adoption at the time of Exhibit B, the father of the boy would have allowed him to remain for all these years under the care of the deceased. There is also the evidence of witnesses whom the District Judge believed, notably plaintiff's witness No. 3, that the deceased himself spoke to having adopted the boy. It is also in evidence that there was a partition suit in 1902 in the plaintiff's natural family between his natural brothers and father and that his rights were ignored and his name only appeared in the table of descent appended to the plaint with the note that he had been, given in adoption, It is not very clear under what circumstances the document, spoken to by defence witness No. 1, which the deceased executed but refused to have registered, came into existence or what has become of it but the Sub-Registrar says it referred to a completed adoption, and that the deceased said he intended by means of it to secure a provision for his wife and daughter. On the whole we agree with the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.