Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay confirming the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the Civil Judge, Senior Division of Belgaum.

2. One Devarao had a son by name Shankar born to him by his wife Rangubai who died in about 1898). Shankar died in about 1902 leaving him surviving his widow Gangabai. Davarao died in the year 1904 leaving him surviving his widow Sunderabi, the defendant I. Devarao was the sole surviving co-parcener of the family and after his death the Defendant I and Gangabai the widow of his pre-deceased son Shankar were the only two members of the family surviving. Gangabai adopted Devaji the plaintiff as a son to her deceased husband Shankar on or about the 18th February, 1934, and disputes arose between Gangabai and the plaitniff on the one hand and the Defendant I on the other in regard to the validity of the adoption of the Plaintiff.

These disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of V. D. Belvi, a pleader at Belgaum. He entered upon the reference and during the course of the reference he communicated to the parties his opinion in regard to the position of the plaintiff as the adopted son of Shankar, in fact suggesting to the parties that they should if possible bring about an amicable settlement and an award was made by the Arbitrator in terms of the compromise. Under the terms of the award the Arbitrator ordered:

1. It is declared that the adoption of the plaintiff is not valid.

2. It is declared that the right of adoption is lost to Gangabai from the very beginning.

3. It is declared that the plaintiff is not and can never become entitled to the property belonging to the family of Devarao Bapuji Deshpande.

4. Nevertheless, with the object of maintaining peace and good-will and affection in the family and the property belogning to the family may not be wasted away owing to the rise of any dispute of whatsoever sort and if Gangabai and the plaintiff were to agree to what is written in the above paragraphs some consideration will have to be given to them respectively - for all these purposes - the Defendant I shall pay to the plaintiff rupees 8,000 eight thousand in one lump sum. If the Defendant 1 does not pay the amount as aforesaid the Plaintiff shall recover the same from the property belonging to the family, lying in the Defendant I s possession.

5. The decree for maintenance obtained by Gangabai against the Defendant I in the regular suit No. 224 of 1911 of the Gokak Subordinate Judge s Court shall continue permanenlty.

3. An application was made in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum which was registered as Suit No. 291 of 1937, to obtain a decree in terms of the award and the plaintiff having admitted the termsof the compromise and the award and the receipt of Rs. 8,000 the Court made a decree accordingly on the 6th August,1937. The Defendant I continued to pay to Gangabai maintenance in accordance with the decree passed in her favour by the Subordinate Judge s Court at Gokak and this position of affairs continued right up to December, 1943.

4. The decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council - in Anant v. Shankar , AIR 1943 PC 196 (A), was pronounced on the 26th July, 1943, and some lawyer sems to have advised Gangabai that she could adopt the plaintiff again. Following the advice Gangabai adopted the Plaintiff as a son to her deceased husband Shankar again on the 12th December 1943. Coming to know of this adoption, the Defendant I adopted her daughter s son, Jivaji, the Defendant 2 as a son to her deceased husband Davarao but it is alleged that she ante-dated the deed of adoption executed by her in his favour to the 28th November, 1943. The plaintiff thereupon filed on the 31st January, 1944, a suit being Regular Original Suit No. 330 of 1944 in the First Class Subordinate Judge sCourt at Belgaum against the Defendants 1 and 2 claiming possession of the properties belonging to the family, basing his clai