DESHPANDE, J. :-6.*Mr. Sali relies on cl.(c) of the proviso to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in support of his second contention that Ananda's adoption, cannot have the effect of divesting Dhondi, of the property held by him since 1929. It is necessary first to ascertain what precisely was vested in Dhondi in 1929 to find out if any process of divesting is involved at all in Ananda's claim to half share in the said property.

* Paras 1 to 5 not reported as per instructions - Ed.

7. Admittedly, Govinda died when he was living joint with his brother Dhondi leaving behind him, his widow competent to adopt. The property held by Dhondi, admittedly is ancestral and he must, therefore be held to be holding it as the sole surviving coparcener. That the widow Gitabai has only a right of maintenance, has no bearing on the question. In the case of Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra reported in AIR 1970 SC 343, the Supreme Court held that the family of a sole surviving coparcener, with a widow competent to adopt, continues to be joint family, and the property so held by him is joint family property. The Court, referred to its