JUDGMENT
1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that Madan Mohan, defendant No. 2, was not the adopted son of Govind Parsad, the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 is the widow of Govind Prasad. The Court below has found that Madan Mohan was adopted by Govind Parsad and has dismissed the claim.
2. This part of the finding of the lower Court the appellant is unable to impugn in this appeal. The learned Vakil for the appellant, however, contends that the adoption of Madan Mohan by Govind Parsad was invalid under the Hindu Law. This contention is based on the following grounds: "Govind Parsad's step-mother was Musammat Raj Kumari. She had a brother Munna Lal, whose son was Dwarka, and Dwarka's daughter was Musammat Ganesha, the mother of Madan Mohan; Govind Parsad could not have validly married Musammat Ganesha in her maiden state, and, therefore,; the adoption by him of Ganesha's son, Madan Mohan, was invalid as the effect of the adoption of Madan Mohan would be to allow of the adoption of a boy between whose mother and the adopter there would be incongruous relationship. It is manifest that Govind Parsad was not the sapinda of Munna Lal, the ancestor of Ganesha. Under the Mitakshara, a sapinda relationship arises from participation in particles of blood. The father of Munna Lal was, no doubt, the father of Raj Kunwar but Govind Parsad, did not inherit any part of the particles of blood of Raj Kunwari's father. Raj Kunwari was merely his step-mother. It is ivve that Raj Kunwari, being the widow of his father, was his sapinda but from that it does not follow that her father and Govind Parsad were sapinda relations. Therefore, there was no legal bar to a valid marriage between Grovind Parsad and Musammat Ganesha, and on this ground it could not be said that the adoption of Ganesha's son by Govind Parsad was invalid under the Hindu Law. Even if we were to take into consideration the question of the offering of oblations, Govind Parsad was not entitled to offer them to the manes of the father of Raj Kunwari and Munna Lal. So that, from either paint of view there was no bar to a marriage between Govind Parsad and Musammat Ganesha, and the adoption of Ganesha's son by him was not invalid. The appeal, therefore, fails. We dismiss it with costs, including fees on the higher scale.