The main legal point established in the judgment is that an adoptive father's disposition of property and adoption form part of one transaction, and the adopted son never acquires any interest in the property disposed of. The court emphasized the importance of the natural father's consent to the disposition of property and highlighted the presumption of validity if the natural father consented to the disposition before the adoption.

Spencer Offg.C.J.

1. The plaintiffs are legatees under the will of one Ramakrishna Aiyar who died on 2nd April,, 1911. The suit is brought to recover possession of properties bequeathed to the plaintiffs under the said will. The deceased owned about 135 acres of land, of which he bequeathed 17 acres 90 cents to be taken by the plaintiffs who were his wifes relations, immediately on his death. They were also to get 19 acres 30 cents upon the death of his widow. Sivagami Ammal to whom the will allotted 45 acres 65 cents. On the same date (23rd March, 1910) that the will was executed, Ramakrishna Aiyar adopted the 3rd defendant and under the will he bequeathed 26 acres 3rd cents to the adopted son. He also gave 12 acres and odd to charity, and 9 acres 33 cents to his two nieces, 6 acres 34 cents to his nephew and grand-nephew and 37 acres to a gnati named Sami Aiyar. Out of the 45 acres given to his wife, the adopted son was to get 26 acres 35 cents upon the widows death. After the bequest in favour of the plaintiffs had become vested in them upon Ramakrishna Aiyars death, their father sold the properties bequeathed to them under the will, to the 1st defendant, who, in turn, sold them to the 2nd defendant, who is alleged to be the benamidar of the adopted son, the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs obtained a decree in the lower Court for possession of the property sued for with mesne profits and costs. The adopted son (the 3rd defendant) now appeals. The 2nd defendant has also appealed against the order directing payment of costs by him.

2. The will (Exhibit A) was presented for registration on the 25th March, 1910. At the same time a document (Exhibit B) was executed by the natural father of the 3rd defendant agreeing to the alienations by will being made by the adoptive father. This document was not registered till the 9th April and the defence to the suit is that it was ante dated. The lower Court has decided against the theory of the agreement being ante-dated. The learned Subordinate Judge states that he is certainly of opinion that the will was carefully thought out before the adoption and was executed before the adoption actually took place, that Natesa Aiyar, the father of the adopted son, was fully informed of the intentions of the testator and had given his free and voluntary consent to such dispositions and that the consent document was executed and completed before the adoption actually took place. The law on the subject of an adoptive father making a will disposing of his property has been clearly established in Lakshmi v. Subramania (1889) 12 Mad. 490. Shephard, J., observes that if an adoption and a disposition of his property by the adoptive father form part of one transaction, the adopted son never acquires any Interest in the property disposed of and no question can arise as to his guardians competency to deal with it. In that case it appeared that the defendants natural father, when he gave his son in adoption, tacitly submitted to the arrangement contained in a will settling certain property on the testators wife. This decision has been followed and approved by the Full Bench in Vinayakrav Ammal v. Sivaramien (1904) 27 Mad. 577, a case of an adoption by a widow in pursuance of her husbands authority, the natural father agreeing prior to the adoption to a disposition of half the property for the widow to enjoy during her life. It is clear that from the moment that an adoption takes place, the natural father of the adopted boy loses his authority on behalf of the boy to give his consent to any disposition of property and at the same moment the adopted son becomes a co-parcener in the family of his adoptive father and thereupon the latter has no power to dispose of ancestral property at his own sweet will and pleasure, but can only make alienations for necessary purposes. In Visalakshi Ammal v. Sivaramien (1904) 27 Mad. 577 it is assumed that the natural father would not have agreed to an adoption coupled with