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 a