Case: Krishnamurthi Vasudeorao Deshpande And Anr Vs. Dhruwaraj

inherited this property of Krishnabai and thus the appellants claimed under Krishnabai. Their such claim is therefore defeasible on the adoption of a son by Tungabai. The fact that Krishnabai inherited the property of her father absolutely, does not affect this question of title being defeated on the adoption of a son by Tungabai. The character of the property does not change, as suggested for the appellants, from coparcenary property to self-acquired property of Krishnabai so long as Tungabai the ,widow of the family, exists, and is capable of adopting a son, who becomes a coparcener.8. The case of an adopted sons claiming to divest the heir of a collateral, who died before the adoption took place, of the property inherited from the collateral, is different from the case of his claiming the property which originally belonged to the adoptive father but had devolved on a collateral and, after the death of the collateral, which took place before the adoption, devolved on a heir of the collateral. In the former case, the claim is to the property of the collateral, while in the latter case it is to the property of the adoptive father, which, by force of circumstances, had passed through the hands of a collateral.9. We may now consider the Full Bench Case of the Bombay High Court, Ramchandra Hanmant v. Balaji Datto, ILR (1955) Bom 837 : ( (S) AIR 1955 Born 291) (FB), which over-ruled the judgment in the instant case. The question formulated for the decision of the Full Bench was :"If on the death of a sole surviving coparcener his property has devolved upon his heir by inheritance and on his death it has vested in his own heir, would the subsequent adoption in the family of the sole surviving coparcener divest it from such heir?"The facts having a bearing on the decision of the question were as follows: Ramchandra and Balaji were brothers. Ramchandra died on October 10, 1903, and his widow Tarabai died two days later. Their son Hanmant had died during Ramchandras lifetime, leaving behind him his widow Sitabai. The Watan property of Ramchandra devolved on Balaji after the death of Tarabai. On Balajis death, it devolved on Datto, his son, who died in 1916. On his death, the property devolved upon his son Balaji. Sitabai, widow of Hanmant, adopted Ramchandra, the plaintiff, on January 21, 1945. Ramchandra thereafter instituted the suit against Balaji, son of Datto, and claimed that property which originally belonged to his adoptive family on the ground that he was entitled to recover it by virtue of his adoption which related back to the date of the death of his adoptive father.10. Chagla, C. J., delivering the judgment of the Court in the above case said, in answer to the question formulated, that the subsequent adoption in the family of the sole surviving coparcener would not divest the property, assuming that Ramchandra, the adoptive grandfather, was the sole surviving coparcener of his own branch and that on his death the property devolved upon Datto and then upon Balaji. The learned Chief Justice, in considering the question on principle, said at page 851 (of ILR Bom): (at p. 292 of AIR) :". . . and therefore it is well settled since the Privy Council decided 70 Ind App 132 : (AIR 1943 P C 196) that Dattu inherited this property subject to defeasance, the defeasance coming into operation in the event of the potential mother Sitabai adopting a son into the family, of Ramchandra."He said at page 852 (of ILR Bom) : (at pp. 292-293 of AIR) :"Balaji has succeeded to the estate of his father Dattu and what the plaintiff is really claiming is not the property of Ramchandra but the property of Dattu which Balaji has inherited as his son . . . . Therefore, really, the plaintiff would have displaced Dattu as the preferential heir to his own grandfather. But it is difficult to understand how that principle can apply when we are dealing with property in the hands of Dattus heir. It cannot be said that qua the estate of Dattu the plaintiff is an heir preferential to Balaji, and really what the plaintiff is claiming is to displace Balaji and to contend that he is the heir of Dattu."He therefore expressed the view :"Therefore, in our opinion, once the principle is accepted, as indeed it must be accepted, that the property which Dattu inherited from Ramchandra was held by him absolutely as a full owner, then it is impossible to accede to the plaintiffs contention that Balaji inherited to that property subject to certain limitations. The possibility of there being a defeasance only continued so long as Dattu was alive. When he died he left his property, which was his absolute property, to his heir and there is no reason in principle why that provision with regard to defeasance should continue after the property had been inherited by Balaji as the heir of Dattu."We may say at once that this conclusion goes against what had been said by this Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kangos Case, 1955-1 S C R 1 : (AIR 195-1 S C 379).11. It has been overlooked that the heir of a collateral succeeding to the sole surviving coparcener inherits the property absolutely, but subject to defeasance, and that the right in the property devolves on his heir, who must consequently take that property absolutely, but still subject to defeasance, as no better title could have been inherited so long as there was the possibility of the defeasancc of the absolute title by a widow of the family of the last surviving coparcener adding a member to the coparcenary by adopting a son to her deceased husband, and in overlooking what was stated in this connection by this Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kangos Case, 1955-1SCR 1 : (AIR 1954 S C 379), (Sic) though not as a decisions, but as a reasoning to come to a decision in that case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It follows from these observations that if A is an owner of property possessing a title defeasible on adoption, not only that title but also the title of all persons claiming under him, will extinguish on the adoption.7. In the present case, Krishnabai owned the property as full owner on the death of her father Narasappagouda, according to the Hindu law in the area in which the property in suit lay. But her title was defeasible on Tungabai, widow of Bandegouda, adopting a son to her husband, Vasappa and, after him, his sons, inherited this property of Krishnabai and thus the appellants claimed under Krishnabai. Their such claim is therefore defeasible on the adoption of a son by Tungabai. The fact that Krishnabai inherited the property of her father absolutely, does not affect this question of title being defeated on the adoption of a son by Tungabai. The character of the property does not change, as suggested for the appellants, from coparcenary property to self-acquired property of Krishnabai so long as Tungabai the ,widow of the family, exists, and is capable of adopting a son, who becomes amay say at once that this conclusion goes against what had been said by this Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kangos Case, 1955-1 S C R 1 : (AIR 195-1 S C 379).11. It has been overlooked that the heir of a collateral succeeding to the sole surviving coparcener inherits the property absolutely, but subject to defeasance, and that the right in the property devolves on his heir, who must consequently take that property absolutely, but still subject to defeasance, as no better title could have been inherited so long as there was the possibility of the defeasancc of the absolute title by a widow of the family of the last surviving coparcener adding a member to the coparcenary by adopting a son to her deceased husband, and in overlooking what was stated in this connection by this Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kangos Case, 1955-1SCR 1 : (AIR 1954 S C 379), (Sic) though not as a decisions, but as a reasoning to come to a decision in that case.