JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 11th March, 1973 in a suit for declaration and, possession.

2. The whole case now hinges on the effect of recitals made in the registered adoption deed (Exhibit D- 1) dated 15th May, 1940 on a sale deed (Exhibit P-1) dated 22nd January, 1958 made in favour of the appellant. In order to appreciate the controversy we would narrate facts which are now held proved by the lower courts and are binding on the parties. The respondent B. Narasimhaiah was adopted by Chikkahanumiah and his wife Smt. Thimmamma by a registered adoption deed (Exhibit D- 1) dated 15th May, 1940. By this document both Smt.. Thimmamma and he husband conferred not only right of co-ownership in all the properties, on B. Narasimhaiah but also agreed that none of the parties will make any alienation of the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to this deed. Thus the adopting parents gave a right of co-ownership in favour of the adopted son and also put a restriction that they will not transfer any property during their lifetime. The relevant recitals of Exhibit D-1 are reproduced as under:

"You must enjoy along with us as a title holder the immovable properties detailed in the schedule hereto which are in our name and possession and all the movable properties held by us. You have complete title after our death to all the immovable and movable properties held by us and you and your progeny can enjoy it happily we have not transferred the properties mentioned in the schedule to anyone in any way so far nor are we going to do hereafter. During our lifetime you should also not transfer the scheduled properties to others in any way but continue to improve them. You should make us happy by getting wife and children and should not neglect us."

3. After the death of Chikkahanumiah, it appears that the relations between Smt. Thimmamma and the adopted son B. Narasimhaiah became strained. Smt. Thimmamma executed a sale deed of the property in question vide exhibit P-1 dated 22-1-1958 in favour of the appellant B.T. Govindappa. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and possession on the strength of the above sale deed. The respondent contested the suit on the ground that in the face of exhibit D-1, Smt. Thimmamma had no right to alienate the property in suit in favour of the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. On appeal, learned District Judge reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The High Court in second appeal reversed the Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appellant has come in appeal to this Court.

4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit house was the stridhan property of Smt. Thimmamma and she had full right to deal with such property and the sale made in favour of the appellant was valid and binding against the respondent. It was also submitted that during the lifetime or Chikkahanumiah, Smt. Thimmamma was not competent to adopt and as such any recitals in Exhibit D-1 were not binding on Smt. Thimmammma. The appellant was the bona fide purchaser for consideration and the suit for declaration and possession ought to have been decreed in his favour.

5. The controversy in the present case is not that Smt. Thimmamma had any right or not to adopt a son during the lifetime of her husband. The controversy is whether the adoptive mother can put any restriction or curtailment in respect of her own stridhan property at the time when a son is adopted in their family, though by her husband. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any law or authority laying down that a Hindu woman was not entitled to put any restriction or relinquish her own rights in the stridhan property, even by her own consent and free will at the time when a son is adopted by her husband. It is established beyond any manner of doubt that Smt. Thimmamma in the