The central legal point established in the judgment is the power of a widow to adopt a son to her deceased husband and the purpose of adoption to secure the continuance of the line, irrespective of the vesting or divesting of the estate.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 85 of 1933) from decrees of the High Court (April 12, 1932) affirming a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Nadiad (March 27, 1929).

The suit was brought by respondent against the appellant and others claiming the Ahima estate, an impartible estate in the Bombay Presidency. The appellant had inherited the estate upon the death of his father in 1899, but in 1915 had been adopted into another family. The defence was (1.) that upon the adoption in 19T5 the defendant-appellant continued to be entitled to the estate ; (2.) that the plaintiff-respondent had no title, because in 1917 the widow of the deceased holder had adopted one Mansangji.

The High Court (Patkar and Barlee JJ.), affirming the trial judge, held that the effect of the adoption of the present appellant in 1915 was to extinguish all his rights to the property in his natural family, including property which he had already inherited ; also that the adoption of Mansangji in 1917 was invalid, as the estate was not then vested in the adopting widow.

1935. Jan. 24, 25. Upjohn K.C. and Parikh for the appellant. This being a suit in ejectment the plaintiff had to establish his title. Having regard to the judgment of the Board in Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh (( 1933) L. R. 60 I. A. 242.), which was delivered after the judgment of the High Court, the adoption of Mansangji was valid although the estate was not vested in the adopting widow. The title was therefore in him, not in the plaintiff.

Subba Row for the respondent, being called upon before other points were argued, sought to distinguish the above decision of the Board upon grounds stated in the present judgment.

March 11. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR SHADI LAL. The property, which is the subject-matter of the dispute in this appeal, is an impartible taluqdari estate called Ahima estate. It is situated in the Kaira district of the Bombay Presidency, and the parties are agreed that the succession to the estate is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, and that females are excluded from inheritance.

The relationship of the persons concerned in the dispute is shown in the following pedigree table —

Narsangji defendant No. 5. |

|

Rupaliba = Himatsangji (died = Surajba

| 1888) |

Chandrasangji (died |

6.4. 1899) = widow |

Kesarba, defendant |

No. 2 adopted |

Mansangji, |

defendant No. 3, on |

15.9. 1917. |

| |

| |

Chhatrasingji |

defendant No. 1, |

went in adoption to |

Bhamarai on |

2.8. 1915 =

wife Dolatba, |

defendant No. 4. Bhimsangji plaintiff

| (died on 22.1.26)

|

| |

Bajuba (born before |

the adoption of |

defendant No. 1) |

|| Shivsangji added Laxmansangji legal representative defendant No. 6 of deceased plaintiff.

Himatsangji died in 1888, leaving him surviving two sons, Chandrasangji and Bhimsangji. The elder son, Chandrasangji, inherited the entire impartible estate, while the younger son, Bhimsangji, received only maintenance. In April, 1899, Chandrasangji died, and was succeeded by his son, Chhatrasingji.

On August 2, 1915, Chhatrasingji was adopted by the widow of one Kunwarsahib Bapusahib, the proprietor of the impartible estate of Bhamaria, which is a larger estate than the Ahima estate. Though Chhatrasingji was, at that time, a married man of about thirty-three years of age, his adoption I was in accordance with the Hindu law as recognized in the Bombay Presidency. He consequently became a member of the adoptive family.

Thereupon, Kesarba, the widow of Chandrasangji, adopted Mansangji as a son to her deceased husband ; and the factum of this adoption, which was made on September 15, 1917, is no longer a matter in controversy between the parties. Its validity, however, raises an important issue which their Lordships have to determine.

The suit, which has led to the present appeal, was commenced on February 9, 1918, by Chhatrasingjis paternal uncle, Bhimsangji, who claimed the Ahima estate on the ground that Chhatrasingji, by reason of his adopt