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 earlier judgment in AIR 1966 SC 1523, wherein the Court had followed the judgment in the case of Kalyanji Vithaldas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, reported in AIR 1937 PC 36 and observed: (para 3, page 345)

"Under the Hindu system of law, a joint family may consist of a single male member and, widows of deceased male members and that the property of a joint family did not cease to belong to a joint family, merely because the family is represented by a single coparcener who possesses rights which an absolute owner of property may possess."

The Court then referred to the dicta of the Judicial Committee in Attorney General of Ceylon v. A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar reported in 1957 AC 540 and observed at p. 346:

"It is only by analysing the nature of the rights of the members of the undivided family, both those in being and those yet to be born, that it can be determined whether the family property can properly be described as 'joint property' of the undivided family."

The Court then quoted the following passage at page 346 from the Arunachalam's case (supra) to indicate the nature of the title of such sole surviving coparcener with a widow in the family:

"............ though it may be correct to speak of him as the 'owner', yet it is still correct describe that which he owns as the joint family property. For his ownership is such that upon the adoption of a son it assumes a different quality; it is such, too, that female members of the family (whose members may increase) have a right to maintenance out of it and in some circumstances to a charge for maintenance upon it. And these are incidents which arise, notwithstanding his so-called ownership, just because the property has been and has not ceased to be joint family property."

The Court then quoted judgement of Gratisan, J. at page 346 and observed :

"The property which was the joint family property of the Hindu undivided family did not cease to be so because of the "temporary reduction of the co-parcenery unit to a single individual". The character of the property, viz., that it was the joint property of a Hindu undivided family remained the same."

The Court then observed by reference to the facts of the said case, that the widow of the first deceased brother had adopted a son before the death of the second brother and

"the adopted son, became the coparcener with the surviving brother of widow's husband and after his death, was entitled to joint family properties."

8. What can be said to have been vested in Dhondi under this legal position? The word "vest" is a word of variable import, its precise meaning depending on the context. Ownership of the joint family property vests in the joint family while management thereof alone vests in the Manager. No one member, including even a sole surviving coparce