The central legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of equity in re-dividing the property on a fair and equitable basis, particularly in cases where alienations were made by co-parceners before the adoption of the son.

1. The question submitted for the decision of this Full Bench is capable of being decided on a very narrow point and the question is this :

"Whether in" re-opening a partition made bet-Ween the surviving members of a joint Hindu family at the instance of a son adopted by the widow of a deceased co-parcener, the adopted son is entitled to claim that the properties alienated not for justifying necessity by the surviving co-parceners should be assigned to their shares and the adopted son should be awarded his share in the property existing at the date of his adoptive fathers death and accretions thereto UK-affected by those alienations?" The matter was referred to a Pull Bench because Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Vyas, felt that there was some conflict between the ratio of the decision in Bhimaji Krishnarao v. Hanmantrao Vinayak, 53 Bom LR 290 : (AIR 1950 Bom 271) (A), and the decision in Gurupadappa v. Karishid-dappa, 56 Bom LB 252 : (AIR. 1954 Bom 318) (B).

2. Now, this Court laid down in the earlier decision that, when there was a sole surviving co-parcener and he made certain alienations and there was an adoption in the family subsequent to the alienations, then the alienations were binding on the adopted son because at the dates of the alienations the co-parcener had full right to treat the family property as if it was his own property, and that an adoption which was subsequent to the alienations could not affect the property which was already disposed of by the co-parcener as a person who acted as the full owner of the property. This decision was based on the well-recognised principle in Hindu Law that an adopted son is bound by all lawful alienations; and in deciding this case, the Court also gave effect to the principle enunciated in the decision of the Privy Council in Krishnamurthi Ayyar v. Krishnamurthi Ayyar, 54 Ind App 248 : (AIR 1927 PC 139) (C) that "when a disposition is made inter vivos by one who has full power over property under which a portion of that property is carried away, it is clear that no rights of a son who is subsequently adopted can affect that portion which is disposed of."

Now, the case that arises here !s different because we have a case, not of a sole surviving co-parcener, but of a partition of a joint Hindu family and members of the divided family making alienations and an adoption taking place after the partition; and the question is What are the rights of the adopted son ?

3. Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. justice Vyas felt that in the later decision decided by Mr. Justice Bavdekar and Mr. Justice Vyas reported in 56 Bom LR 252 : (AIR 19S4 Born 318) (B), a view was taken which was different from the ratio laid down in the earlier judgment. In that case the learned Judges held that, if there was an adoption after partition and one of the members of the original co-parcenary had made alienations which could not be justified by legal neces- sity, then on the re-opening of the partition the alienations should be allotted to the share of the alienating co-parceners and the adopted son should not be affected by the alienation; It is possible to take the view that the position of the members of the divided family is in law the same as that of a sole surviving co-parcener. Just as the sole surviving co-parcener has every right and authority to dispose of the property as if it was of his absolute ownership, so also after partition the members of the erstwhile co-parcenary have equally the right of disposing of that share which came to them on partition as if it was their property. Now, if the decision of Mr. Justice Bavdekar and Mr. Justice Vyas, in 56 Bom LR 252 : (AIR 1954 Bom 318 (B), conflicted with tile extension of the view taken by this Court in 52 Bom LR 290 : (AIR 1950 Bom 271) (A), as applying to the case of members of a disrupted joint family, then we would have considered which was the more correct view the view taken in 52 Bom LR 290 : (AIR. 1950 Bom 271) (A), or the view taken by