Adopted children obtain full rights in adoptive family property from the date of adoption under Hindu law, superseding traditional limitations imposed by prior legal frameworks.

1. This appeal occupied considerable time of ours because of some intricate, important and thorny debate with regard to the rights of the adopted son in the adoptive family. As far as the facts are concerned, the appeal raises a very limited issue. Initially, the appeal was filed by Hirabai (widow of Harji Ingale), who was found to be the adoptive mother of respondent Babu. Hirabai died during the pendency of the appeal. Appellant No. 2 Latabai, who is a minor of 11 years of age, claims to be the purchaser of the property from Hirabai after the adoption in issue of Babu. One Digamberrao, who has not examined himself, is the guardian father of Latabai, who has, in fact, purported to take the sale of the property from Hirabai.

2. The suit was initially filed by Hirabai alone, but after the institution of the suit, the so - called transfer was effected and Latabai joined as plaintiff No. 2. By the suit, the relief of cancellation of the deed of adoption. and consequent declaration of ownership with regard to Survey No. 81, admeasuring 5 acres and 23 gunthas, was prayed for. It is not in dispute that one Harji was the owner of the suit land and he died sometime between 1935 and 1937. The property in his hands was the ancestral property. By the suit deed, which is at Ex. 83, duly executed and registered on Mar. 9, 1962, Hirabai adapted defendant Babu. After the adoption, the property, being Survey No. 81, was, duly mutated in the name of Babu. There is some dispute between the parties with regard to the application given for mutation and the notice issued by the Revenue Authorities (Exs. 69 and 70 respectively) and the mutation order dated, April 20, 1963. The fact remains, however, that immediately after the adoption, as far as the suit survey number is concerned, it was duly mutated in the name of the adopted son Babu. Initially, the suit was instituted in the year 1967 on the allegations that the defendant's father and some respectable persons persuaded the plaintiff Hirabai to take the defendant in adoption for continuing the line of the family and the plaintiff agreed to this suggestion and told them to keep Babu at her house and after she satisfied herself about his conduct, she would perform the adoption ceremonies. Accordingly, the defendant was kept by the plaintiff for the purpose of satisfaction and confidence about the boy. Though the deed of adoption was executed and registered on March 9, 1962, no ceremonies of adoption took place. Defendant Babu started living with the plaintiff after the execution of the deed and was helping her in the management of the estate, but as his behaviour was not proper and he was found to be dishonest to the extent that the plaintiff was driven out of the land, the plaintiff was compelled to sue for the reliefs and though the mutation was effected, the same was got dishonestly effected by the defendant. These allegations were not materially changed even after the purchase was effected by Digamberrao obviously in the name of the minor daughter, Latabai, who joined as plaintiff No. 2, of the suit survey number for an ostensible consideration of Rs.25,000/-. At this stage, we have referred to the basic allegations in the plaint so as to indicate that the duly registered deed of adoption is sought to be cancelled and avoided mainly on two grounds, firstly the want of ceremonies and secondly that it was, in fact, executed on the basis that adoption ceremonies will take place in future up