The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the testator's intention and accurate description in determining the validity of a property devise or will.

1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal, their suit having been dismissed in the trial Court and their first appeal having failed. The following genealogical tree will show the relationship between the parties excepting defendant respondents 2 and 3, who are purchasers from defendant 1.

SITARAM ________________________|___________________ | | | Ambadas Manohar Ramchandra | (d. 23-12-33) | ___|___________________ | | | | Deorao (Plff. 2) Shantabai | (Adopted by Manohar) (Deft. 1) _______|______________________ | | | Pralhad Keshao Krishna (Plff. 1) (Deft. 5) (Deft. 4) |_________________________________ | | | Madhukar Dattatraya Digambar. (Plff. 2) (Adopted by Manohar)

The plaintiffs are Pralhad and his minor natural son Dattatraya. Pralhad claimed that Manohar had died in a state of jointness with his brother Ambadas (Ramchandra had died previously) and that consequently be and Dattatraya his son, succeeded to Manohar's property by survivorship. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in the event of it not being established that Pralhad and Manohar were members of a joint family at the time of Manohar's death, Dattatraya had been adopted by Manohar shortly before his death and had taken the name of Deorao and is consequently entitled to succeed to Manohar's property to the exclusion of Mt. Shantabai, defendant 1, who, had there been no adoption, would be Manohar's heir. Finally it was pleaded that in the event of neither of the previous contentions being upheld Deorao was entitled to succeed as a devisee by virtue of a document dated 22-12-1933 executed by Manohar on the day before he died which read in conjunction with a will executed on the same day, had the force of a will although it purported to be a deed of adoption in favour of plaintiff 2. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have held against the plaintiffs on all three contentions. It has been found that Manohar had been separated before his death, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Manohar had adopted plaintiff 2 and that the document, Ex. P-46, cannot operate as a will.

2. In appeal before us it is conceded that the first two questions posed in the memorandum of appeal, namely that of the jointness of the family and of the actual adoption of Dattatraya, cannot be pressed as the findings on them are findings of fact; but it has been contended that the deed of adoption, which was executed one month after the date on which the adoption is said to have taken place, is in fact a devise of property to Dattatraya as a persona designata and that although he may be therein described as an adopted son the devise must nevertheless hold good.

3. We append a translation of this document (EX.P.46):

Deed of adoption [executed] in favour of Dattatraya Prablad Upasane, Brahmin, minor under the guardianship of his father Pralhad Ambadas Upasane Brahmin, resident of Akot, taluk aforesaid, district Akola, by Manohar Sitaram Brahmin, resident of Sukanda, taluk Basim, district Akola, in the year 1933 A.D., to the following effect:

I have no male issue of my own and, in order to continue my Kul dharma (probably ''family observances) and line, I have duly asked your natural parents (for you) and have adopted you i.e. the younger son of Pralhad Ambadas, Upasane, Brahmin, resident of Akot by name Dattatraya, according to Hindu law in the presence of Dewas (deities), Gurus (preceptors), Brahmins, and (my) relatives and friends, and you have now been named Deo Rao. (You) may hereafter keep up the name of Manoharpant and propagate the line. You have, from this day, become the owner of the whole of my ancestral and self-acquired movable and immovable property. During my lifetime, however, I shall be entitled to manage and look after the entire property. So long as I am alive, you cannot disturb this power. During my life-time you cannot independently of me effect any transaction in respect of the property. Unless the heirs [probably ''the beneficiaries''] mentioned in t