The principle of relation back in adoption applies only to the estate of the adoptive father and not to the estate of a collateral.

Judgment

RAJAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, on certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution, raises the question whether Dhruvraj, respondent, on his adoption, divests the defendants-appellants of the properties of his adoptive father and grand-father.

2. The facts giving rise to this question are as follows: Bandegouda, father of the respondent, died in 1882, pre-deceasing his father Narasappagouda, who died later in 1892. Bandegouda left his widow Tungabai, who adopted Dhruvraj as her son on July 31, 1945.

3. Narasappagouda, on his death, left two daughters, Krishnabai and Shyamabai alias Chamavva. The two sisters succeeded to their father s property in equal shares. We are not now concerned with the share of Shyamabai, the respondent s suit with respect to it having been dismissed.

4. Krishnabai died on October 21, 1933. Her son Vasappa, succeeded her and died on February 20, 1934, leaving two sons, the appellants, Krishnamurti an Subbaji. Dhruvraj, respondent, instituted the suit for the recovery of the property from the two appellants alleging that the immovable properties formerly belonged to the ownership of and were under the vahiwat of the joint family of the above mentioned Narasappagouda Patil and Bandegouda Patil. The suit also related to declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the Patilki rights in respect of the village Hombal, as the near relative of Narasappagouda . The appellants denied the respondent s rights to the properties contending that Krishnabai was the full owner of the properties and thus became a fresh stock of descent and that the appellants had inherited the properties from their father Vasappa to whom they had been alienated by krishnabai in 1930. The High Court held that the alleged alienation by Krishnabai of her share to Vasappa in 1930 was not binding on the respondent as it amounted to a gift of immovable properties and was not made by a registered document. It further held that the respondent could divest the appellants of the properties which belonged to the respondent s adoptive grandfather and upheld the decree of the trial Court with respect to the property which had gone in the possession of Krishnabai on the death of her father.

5. This Court considered the rights of an adopted son with respect to the property of his adoptive father and of the collaterals, in Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji, 1955-1 SCR 1. The principles to be deduced from what it was said in this case may he summarised thus :

(i) An adopted son is held entitled to take in defeasance of the rights acquired prior to his adoption on the ground that in the eye of law his adoption relates back, by a legal fiction, to the date of the death of his adoptive father, he being put in the position of a posthumous son.

(ii) As a preferential heir, an adopted son (a) divests his mother of the estate of his adoptive father; (b) divests his adoptive mother of the estate she gets as an heir of her son who died after the death of her husband.

(iii) A coparcenary continues to subsist so long as there is in existence a widow of a coparcener capable of bringing a son into existence by adoption; and if the widow made an adoption, the rights of the adopted son are the same as if he had been in existence at the time when his adoptive father died and that his title as coparcener prevails as against. the title of any person claiming as heir to the last coparcener.

(iv) The principle of relation back applies only when the claim made by the adopted son relates to the estate of his adoptive father. The estate may be definite and ascertained, as when he is the sole and absolute owner of the properties, or it may be fluctuating as when he is a member of a joint Hindi family in which the interest of the coparceners is liable to increase by death or decrease by birth. In either case, it is the interest of the adoptive father which the adopted son is declared entitled to take as on the date of his death. This principle of relation bac