Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.@mdashThe plaintiff claiming to be the adopted son of defendant sued for partition. His suit was dismissed by both
the courts below on the finding that the alleged adoption was invalid. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. The parties are ahirs. The plaintiff
at the time of the alleged adoption was a married man. It is admitted that among the twice-born classes a married man cannot be adopted. The
court below says that ahirs belong to the twice-born classes. This assertion is challenged in appeal. However that may be, there is authority for
holding that the adoption of a married man is not valid even amongst Sudras. In the case of Pichuvayyan v. Subbayyan ILR (1889) Mad. 128 it
was said that an adoption in order to be valid even among Sudras must take place before the marriage of the adopted son. Reference is made to
the Dattaka Chandrika. The same rule is to be found in the text-books on the subject. We see no reason to differ from the finding of the court
below on this point. As to the question of estoppel we hold that there is no estoppel in a case of this nature. The plea of limitation in our opinion
has no force. We dismiss the appeal with costs.