12, 121 60, 567 Roebuck v. Henderson, 54 P. R., 1896 Rojendra Nath Mullick v. Luchhimoni Dassee, I. L. R., XXIX Calc., 595 Rukan Din v. Ilam Din, 100 P. R., 1900 Rukna v, Kahn Singh, 179 P. R., 1888 ... Runchordas Vandravandas ". Parvatibai, I. L. R.. XXIII Bom., 725 S Sadasook Agarwalla v. Baikanta Nath, I. L. R., XXXI Calc., 1043 Ditta v. Roda, 83 P. R., 1902 ... Sajedur Raja v. Baidyanath Deb, I. L. R., XX Calc., 397 v. Gour Mohem Das, I. L. R., XXIV Calc., 418 Sami v. Soma Sundra, J. L. R., VI Mad., 119 Samman v. Ala Bakhsh, 106 P. R., 1901 Sant Singh v. Jawala Singh, 58 P. R., 1899... Sardar Khushal Singh v. Puran Singh, 156 P. R., 1888 Wasawa Singh v. Sardar Arur Singh, 33 P. R., 1900 Saudagar Singh v. Sant Ram, 103 P. R., 1906 Savitri v. Ramji, I. L R., XIV Bom., 232 ... Sayad Abdul Hak v. Gulam Jilani, I. L. R., XX Bom., 677 Hussein Mian v. Collector of Kaira, I. L. R., XXI Bom., 48, 257 Sayid Mazhar Hussain v. Mussammat Bodha Bibi, I. L R., XVII All., Secretary of State v. Sukhdeo, I. L. R, XXI All., 341 Shamas Din v. Ghulam Kadir, 20 P. R., 1891, F. B. 57,111 251, 517 28 113 Sheikh Khoorshed Hossein v. Nabbee Fatima, I. L. R., III Calc., Shirekuli Tunapa Hegade v. Ajjibal Narashino Hegade, I. L. R., XV Bom., 297 149 694 Shivram Hari v. Arjan, I. L. R., V Bom., 258 61 286 Shrimant Sagijirao v. Smith, I. L. R., XX Bom., 736 Sinam Mal v. The Administrator-General of Madras, I. L. R, VIII Mad., 169 ... Name of Case. No. Page. Sita Ram v. Bhawani Din Ram, I. L. R., XXVI All., 105 Situl Pershad v. Manohur Das, 23 W. R., 325 ... ... ... Sohna Singh v. Dipa Shah, 15 P. R., 1902 Sookh Moyee Chowdhrani v. Raghubendro Narain Chowdhry, 24 W. R., 7 Soorjee Monee Dayeer. Suddamind Mahapatter, 12 B. L. R., 304, P. C., Stewart's Trusts, In re: L. R., 22 L. J. (N S.), 369 ... Suddari Letani v. Pitambari Letani, I. L. R., XXXII Calc., 871 400 ... ... Sultan Bakhsh v. Mussammat Mahian, 46 P. R., 1894 Tajammal Husain v. Uda, I. L. R., III All., 688 Tancred v. Delagoa Bay and East Africa Ry. Coy., L. R., 23 Q. B. D., Singh v. Muhammad, 74 P. R., 1903. Tetley v. Jai Shankar, I. L. R., I All., 726 Thakar Das v. Beechey, 49 P. R, 1906 ::: 323 26 104 ... 674 ... ... :: Umersey Premji v. Shamji Kanji, I. L. R., XIII Bom., 119 Umesh Chandra Das r. Shib Narain Mandal, I. L. R., XXXI Calc., 1011 Name of Case. V No. Page. Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valiya Raja, I. L. R., XXV Mad., 300, F. B. Viraraghada v. Venkata, I. L. R., XVI Mad., 287 Vilayat Husen . Maharaja Mahendra Chandra Nandy, I. L. R., XXVIII All, 88 Vitthilinga Padayachi v. Vithilinga Mudali, I. L. R., XV Mad., 111 Chief Court of the Punjab. CIVIL JUDGMENTS. No. 1. Before Mr. Justice Johnstone and Mr. Justice Rattigan. APPELLANT, MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN AND OTHERS,-(PLAINTIFFS),- Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1902. Custom-Alienation-Gift of land inherited by daughter in favor of her adopted sonn-Suit by reversioner of the last male owner for possession on ground that the gift was invalid as against them-Plea of estoppel by conduct of acquiescence-Inducing person to believe in and act upon the truth of anything-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115-Limitation—Limitation Act, 1877, Schedule II, Article 118-Ansari Sheikhs of Basti Danishmandan, Jullundur District. In 1832 'J,' a sonless Ansari Sheikh of Basti Danishmandan in the Jullundur District, gifted his ancestral land in lieu of his wife's dower to his daughter M, which in accordance with the wishes of the donor passed on her death in 1849 to her husband 'S.' In 1851'S' in turn gifted the said property along with what he had inherited from his own father to his daughter 'Z' in lieu of her mother's dower. Z married B and being childless adopted a boy M, defendant in this case, by a registered deed which was executed in 1887 and soon after settled the property, which had come to her from her father S,' on her adopted son by a deed of gift, dated 4th May 1888, mutation of which was duly effected in the course of the same year in favour of M as the adopted son of Z. In 1895 a private partition was made, the parties appearing before the revenue authorities and requesting that the arrangement be recorded and entries made in accordance thereof and allowing defendant in connection with this land to be described as the adopted son of Z. This arrangement was sanctioned on 11th June 1896 with fall consent of all persons concerned, and the parties then took possession of their respective shares in pursuance thereof. On the death of Z which occurred on 4th May 1899 the plaintiffs instituted the present claim for possession on the allegation that they being the nearest collaterals were the rightful heirs to the property APPELLATE SIDE. 18th April 1906. held by him, and that defendant had no title thereto, the deed of gift and his alleged adoption being both fictitious and invalid by law and custom. The defence inter alia pleaded estoppel by conduct, acquiescence and limitation. Held, that the plaintiffs were precluded from making the present claim, the facts noted above shewing acquiescence in the adoption and alienations. Beld, also, that Article 118 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to every case where the validity of an adoption is the substantial question, whether it arises on plaint or on defendant's pleas, and the fact that it was alleged to be invalid or inherently invalid makes no difference in this matter. Muhammad Din v. Sadar Din (1) not followed. Found upon the evidence that in matters of alienation and succession the parties were governed by Muhammadan Law and not by custom and therefore a male proprietor was competent to make an absolute gift of his ancestral immovable property in favour of his daugh. ter. First appeal from the decree of S. Wilberforce, Esquire, Shah Din and Muhammad Shafi, for appellant. The judgment of the Court was delivered by JOHNSTONE, J.-This intricate and somewhat difficult case has been argued before us for 8 days, the debate on both sides being marked by a high level of forensic ability. The record is voluminous ; and, in addition, the number of important questions of law and custom arising on the appeal rendered it necessary for counsel to refer us to a very large number of rulings, for the adequate consideration of which we reserved judgment. A pedigree-table is given in the judgment of the Court below, but it needs to be reproduced in a supplemented form as follows : (1) 67 P. R., 1901, |