Ante-adoption agreements giving property to an adoptive mother are valid if reasonable, binding the adopted son.

1. This second appeal filed by the original defendant No. 1 Ramchandra Ganpati Salunke raises an important question of Hindu Law. Respondent No. 1 Rajaram is the plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 Muktabai who was original defendant No. 2 died pending the second appeal and her adopted son Rajaram who is respondent No. 1 is brought on record as her heir. Respondent No. 3 Ganpati is original defendant No. 3.

2. Defendant No. 2 Muktabai adopted the plaintiff Rajaram on August 3, 1953. Her husband Bapu died in the year 1947. The parties to the suit are very closely related to each other, Rajaram's natural father Tukaram is the full brother of defendant No. 1 Ramchandra. Tukaram and Ramchandra are the sons of Ganpati, defendant No. 3, and his wife Chandrabai. This Chandrabai is the daughter of Sakharam who is the brother of Muktabai's husband Bapu. Ganpati defendant No. 3, is the son of Manjabai who was the sister of Bapu and Sakharam. The relationship between the parties would be clear from the genealogy which is set out below :
NARU
Mukta Bapu Sakharam=Banubai Manjabai
(D. 2) (d. 1947)
Chandrabai Ganpati (D. 3)=Chandrabai)
Rajaram (married to Ganpati,
(Plantiff adopted on 3.8.53 ) Daft. No. 3.)
Tukaram Ramchandra
(D. 1)
Rajaram
(Given in adoption Plaintiff)
On the date of adoption of the plaintiff Kajaram by Muktabai, another event took place which gave rise to this litigation. On that day, Muktabai sold the two suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 146/2 and 153 / la together admeasuring 3 acres and 19 gunthas by a registered sale - deed for Rupees 2,000/-. This sale - deed is being challenged by the plaintiff in the present petition (sic).

3. Muktabai's husband Bapu was the owner of 20 acres of land and after his death Muktabai got this property as his widow under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act . 1937. The result of the adoption and the sale - deed was that Muktabai and Rajaram retained about 161/2 acres of land while Ramchandra, defendant No. 1, got the remaining portion of 3 acres and 19 gunthas under the sale - deed. At the time of adoption, Rajaram was a minor and he was given in adoption by the plaintiff's natural father Tukaram. On August 20, 1964, the plaintiff filed the present suit challenging the sale - deed executed by Mukta in favour of Ramchandra on August 3, 1953 on diverse grounds. The main ground on which this sale - deed was challenged was that Muktabai was a Hindu widow haying only widow's estate in the suit lands, and, therefore, was not entitled to alienate it. He challenged the sale - deed on the ground that it was not for legal necessity and also was without any consideration. The plaintiff's case was that he being the adopted son, such a sale - deed was not binding on him and he was entitled to get possession of the suit lands as owner thereof.

4. The contesting defendant Ramchandra denied the plaintiff's contention that there was no legal necessity or that no consideration was paid by him under the sale - deed. His principal contention, however, was that Mukta had incurred some debts, and for payment of the debts, the sale - deed was executed in his favour for Rs. 2,000/-. According to him, there was an arrangement agreed upon between the plaintiff's natural father Tukaram, Ramchandra and Mukta that such a sale - deed should be executed in favour of Ramchandra on his paying Rs. 2,000/- as price thereof and Rajaram should be adopted by Mukta as her son. In short, his contention was that both the adoption as well as the sale - deed were agreed upon between these persons and under this anteadoption agreement both the sale - deed as well as the deed of adoption were executed one after the other on August 3, 1953. He also contended that if the sale deed had not taken place, the plaintiff would not hav