Adoption proof and estoppel by representation fail where admissions are not shown to have caused prejudice.

Proof of a valid adoption must be based on reliable evidence; where the evidence is found unreliable and the finding that adoption was not established is neither perverse nor erroneous in law, the claim fails. Admissions in revenue documents are relevant evidence under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but they are not conclusive. Estoppel by representation applies only if the claimant proves that he altered his position on the faith of the representation to his detriment. In the absence of proof of prejudice or change of position, the widow was not precluded from disputing the adoption, and the challenge failed on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proved a valid adoption in fact; (ii) whether the widow was estopped from disputing the adoption on the basis of her earlier admissions.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff proved a valid adoption in fact.

Analysis: The evidence adduced to prove the adoption was found unreliable. The appellate finding rejecting the factum of adoption was not shown to be perverse or erroneous in law, and the case was treated as one where adoption in fact had not been established.

Conclusion: The plaintiff did not prove adoption in fact.

Issue (ii): Whether the widow was estopped from disputing the adoption on the basis of her earlier admissions.

Analysis: The widow's statements in revenue-related documents were admissions and relevant evidence under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but they were not conclusive. Estoppel by representation required proof that the plaintiff altered his position on the faith of those statements to his prejudice. The explanation for the admissions was accepted, and there was no proof that the plaintiff suffered detriment or changed his position because of them.

Conclusion: The widow was not estopped from disputing the adoption.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the widow's denial of adoption failed, and the second appeal was rejected on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Admissions are relevant but not conclusive, and estoppel by representation arises only when a person acts upon the representation and alters position to prejudice; absent proof of such detriment, the maker of the admission is not precluded from disputing it.

---