The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of 'relation back' applies only to the estate of the adoptive father and does not extend to cases where inheritance is claimed from collaterals. Additionally, the doctrine does not apply when a transfer has already been made by the sole surviving coparcener or his heir.

S. R. DAS GUPTA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an important question of Hindu Law; that question being whether or not a son adopted by a widow of a deceased coparcener can claim the joint family property in the hands of a transferee from the heir of the last surviving coparcener -- even though the transfer look place before the adoption.

( 2 ) ONE Irappa and his son Puttappa were the joint owners of the property in question, they being members of a Hindu joint-family. Puttappa died before Irappa leaving a widow Channava who is defendant No. 3 in this case. Thereafter Irappa died in the year 1915. On the death of Irappa his collateral one Channappa became the owner of the suit property as the heir of Irappa. The said channappa transferred the said property to the 1st Respondent on 7th November 1932. In the year 1935 the widow of Puttappa, i. e. Channava, adopted the present Appellant Somasekharappa, this suit is instituted by the transferee from Channappa. His case is that the adopted son, who is defendant 1 in the suit, had taken wrongful possession of the suit property from him. The case of defendant 1 is that he is entitled to the suit property by virtue of his adoption. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff, that is, the transferee, had no tit'e as against the adopted son, i. e. defendant 1. The said view was not accepted by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court held in favour of the transferee and decreed the suit. This appeal has been filed against the said decision of the lower appellate Court by defendant 1, i. e. the adopted son.

( 3 ) THE only contention urged by the learned Advocate for the Appellant in this appeal was that by virtue of the doctrine of 'relation back' his client, who is the adopted son of Puttappa, became entitled to the suit property, which originally belonged to the family of Irappa and Puttappa, and can claim the same from the Plaintiff, the transferee from the heir of Irappa, even though the transfer in his favour had taken place prior to the date of his adoption. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate mainly relied on a decision of the- Privy Council reported in anant Bhikkappa v. Shankar Ramchandra AIR 1943 PC 196. He further contended that the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Srinivas v. Narayan AIR 1934 SC 379 did not dissent from the view taken by the Privy Council on the point in question.

( 4 ) THE first question, therefore, which has to be examined is what is the effect of the decision of the Privy Council in AIR 1943 PC 196. What happened in that case was that one Keshav, who was the last surviving coparcener, had died in the year 1917. His widowed mother Gangabai upon the death of Keshav adopted another son to her husband, i. e. the father of Keshav in the year 1930. After the death of Keshav and before the said adoption had taken place the property had vested in Shankar as the heir of Keshav. A suit out of which the appeal before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee arose was instituted by the adopted son Anant against Shankar claiming the suit property. The question which arose for their Lordships' decision was whether or not, in the circumstances of this case, anant was entitled to divest the estate which had vested in Shankar as the heir of Keshav on keshav's death. Another question which arose for their Lordships' decision was whether or not the properties which Keshav had inherited from one Narayan and which were not really a part of the joint family properties and which had also devolved on Shankar would be equally divested and the plaintiff would be entitled to the same. Their Lordships Came to the conclusion that the plaintiff would be entitled to get both these properties, that is to say, the properties which be-onged to the joint-family of which Keshav was the owner as the sole surviving coparcener and the properties which devolved on Keshav as the heir of Narayan. In dealing with the question a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document