Key Points: - The judgment discusses the impact of posthumous adoption on coparcenary rights and succession, including relation back to the death of the adoptive father [17019760060020][17019760060021]. - The court analyzes whether an adopted son (Sardar Mal) could divest a devisee (Ranchor Das) under a will, due to the adoption after death, applying the doctrine of relation back and exceptions [17019760060020][17019760060021][17019760060016]. - The admissibility and assessment of documentary evidence of adoption, including Ex. DW13A/1 and various affidavits/will proofs, under Evidence Act and Registration Act, with discussion of sub-sections 32(3)/(5) and Section 57/59, and the effect of registration validity [17019760060007][17019760060010][17019760060011]. - The validity of the alleged joint will Ex. DW5/1 (Ladu Ram and Mst. Bugi) and its effect on the properties, including the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, and the non-application of Sec. 63 of the Succession Act due to older jurisdiction [17019760060013][17019760060014][17019760060015]. - The court’s ultimate holding that Sardar Mal is entitled to the disputed properties as the adopted son, by relation back, and that Ranchor Das’ bequest is inoperative against the adoptive rights; and the denial of future mesne profits in cross-objections [17019760060021][17019760060023].

What is the effect of adoption under Hindu law on coparcenary property when the sole surviving coparcener dies and a later adoption is effected?

What is the doctrine of relation back in the context of adopted sons and coparcenary property, and how does it affect the rights of a wille or heirs?

What is the evidentiary standard and admissibility concerns (including registration and secondary evidence) for documentary proofs of adoption and wills in a case involving coparcenary succession and redemption of property?