A person adopted by a Hindu widow after the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 can claim a share in the property which had devolved on a sole surviving coparcener on the death of the husband of the widow who took him to adoption.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 197 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, has preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment passed in the said suit.

2. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is briefly as follows :-- The plaintiff's grand-father Marudaiya Pillai, who was a devotee of Sub-ramaniaswami wanted to perform a charity on auspicious days like Karthigai, including feeding poor. He constructed a building and named it after "Karthigai Annadhana Mandapam" next to his house at door No. 24, Thiruthanthoni Road, Woriyuur, Tiruchy and he was performing the said Kattalai. His ambition was that the Kattalai must be continuously performed without any break even after his lifetime. Hence, he created a permanent trust under the name and style of "Karthigai Kattalai attached to Annadhana Madam" and endowed properties set out in the schedule thereto. In the said madam, there is a portrait of Palani Dhandayudhapani for which he used to perform pooja on every Karthigai day of every Tamil month. Accordingly, he has created a permanent trust in the last Will and testament dated 12.7.82.

3. As per the recitals in the Will he has entrusted the performance of the charities to his second wife's son Vaidyalingam Pillai, the defendant herein and the deceased Sivasubramaniam Pillai alias Pitchai Pillai. Sivasubramaniam Pillai died leaving no heir except his wife Ponnuren-gathammal. She in turn adopted the plaintiff who is no other than her elder daughter's son by a deed of adoption dated 5.2.1976. Prior to the adoption, the performance of the charity was done in rotation for six months by Ponnurengathammal representing her husband for another six months by the defendant, after the death of her husband in 1970.

4. The defendant filed O. A. No. 74 of 1976 under Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act behind the back of the plaintiff and obtained a declaration that the management of Annadhanam charity is a hereditary office on 5.10 1976. According to the plaintiff, the said order is not binding as he is not a party. However, after coming to know of the said order, the plaintiff has chosen to file an appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., praying for remanding the said case for fresh disposal after setting aside the same and impleading the plaintiff as a party. The said appeal A.P. No. 159 of 1978 was dismissed by the Commissioner, with an observation that the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 74 of 1976 has decided that the office is only hereditary and that he has not decided the right interse between the rival parties and hence directed the plaintiff to file a separate suit. Hence this suit for partition of the right to manage the Karthigai Annadhana Kattalai attached to Karthigai Annadhana Madam into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff to manage the same in rotation for six months each by the plaintiff and the defendant.

5. The said suit was resisted by the defendant and in the written statement, it is contended that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of late Sivasubramania Pillai and the adoption by Ponnurangathammal is not true and valid. It is further stated that the said adoption cannot defeat the exclusive right of the defendant to the right of management of the plaint trust or to manage the properties of the same and to conduct the charity in question. It is further stated that the testator Marudiah Pillai has directed that his sons Vaithialingam Pillai and his younger brother Sivasubramania Pillai should enjoy the properties allotted for the suit charity and perform the charity during their life time and thereafter it should be conducted by their senior male heirs.

6. After the death of Marudiah Pillai in 1938, the charity came to be performed by the defendant and Sivasubramania Pillai, Sivasubramania Pillai died in 1968 leaving no male heir. Hence, his male line having become extinct, the defendant became the sole