An adopted son is entitled to a share in the joint family property, despite the fact that the property had devolved on the sole surviving coparcener prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant originally defendant of suit filed by present respondent has challenged the judgment and order of learned Single Judge who has reversed the findings given by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue confirmed the order passed by the lower Court by which the court decreed the suit of partition in favour of present respondent.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the property in dispute which is an agricultural land belong to a common ancestors. As per the case of the parties the following is genealogical table:-

2.1 Mangi Lal son of Kishan Lal died in the year 1912 and his son Kanwar Lal remained unmarried. Kanwar Lal executed a Will in favour of Mukat Lal, the defendant on 09.02.1949. Kanwar Lal died in the year 1954. The property devolved upon Mukat Lal, the defendant under the Will of Kanwar Lal.

2.2 Madho Lal son of Kishan Lal died somewhere in the year 1929-1930 leaving behind his widow Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai. Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai died in the year 1972 leaving behind the plaintiff as adopted son of Madho Lal. Based on the above facts, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the share of Madho Lal in the property of Kishan Lal.

2.3 The defendant Mukat Lal, on the other hand, denied in the first place that the plaintiff Kailash was adopted son of Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai and Madho Lal. It was also submitted that the last coparcener Kanwar Lal died in the year 1954 leaving behind a Will in favour of Mukat Lal, the defendant and, as such, the coparcenery came to an end in the year 1954 itself and consequently, the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in the property.

2.4 A few additional facts may also be taken note of. Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai filed a suit in the year 1958 for declaration that the property is a joint Hindu Family Property and that the Will is illegal and that Mukat Lal was not entitled to inherit the property by virtue of the aforesaid Will. The aforesaid suit filed by Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai was dismissed by the trial court and it was held that she was entitled to maintenance alone out of the property left behind by Kishan Lal. However, the finding given on issue No.1, as is evident from the document Annexure R-4/9 at page 109 is that the property was held to be Joind Hindu Family Property but Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai was held entitled only to maintenance as in the opinion of the learned Trial Court, the Hindu Women''s Right to Property Act not being applicable at the time in the State of Bundi, the share which was of her husband passed by survivorship to Kanwar Lal, the sole surviving coparcener. It was held that Kanwar Lal inherited the property subject to the liability of Madho Lal, the husband of Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai and mother of the petitioner herein.

2.5 Thereafter, in the year 1966, Mukat Lal, the defendant herein, filed a suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 21.05.1959 in favour of Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai be declared to be void and not binding on him and that the said decree had been obtained by collusion and fraud. By the judgment and decree dated 12.07.1966, the suit filed by Mukat Lal for declaring the decree dated 21.05.1959 passed in favour of Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai to be void was dismissed. However, Mukat Lal not being satisfied preferred an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge who allowed the same by judgment dated 09.02.1968 and decreed the suit of Mukat Lal while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.05.1959 passed in Civil Suit No.11/1958 in favour of Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai.

2.6 Smt.Nand Kanwari Bai, the widow of Madho Lal being aggrie