CHAGLA, C.J. :- This appeal raises an interesting question as to the rights of a Hindu son in his natural family on his adoption. One Fakira Shravan mortgaged certain lands to defendant on 18th April 1925, and he was given in adoption on 9th December 1927. Defendant 1 obtained a decree on his mortgage in Special Suit No. 987 of 1931 against Fakira and in execution proceedings defendant purchased the property. Bahinabai then filed a suit from which this appeal arises for a declaration that the decree passed in the mortgage suit was not binding on her and that she was entitled to the mortgaged property and that defendant 1 had no right, title and interest in that property. Bahinabais contention was that on Fakiras adoption the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property was divested from Fakira and became vested in her, and as she was not a party to the suit, the mortgage decree could not be binding on her; and the question that arises for our determination is whether on the adoption of Fakira the equity of redemption became divested. Now, this property came to Fakira on a partition made between the grandfather and his two uncles, his own father being dead; and therefore