K RISHNAMURTHI VASUDEORAO DESHPANDE AND ANR. versus DHRUWARAJ

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 05-05-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
K RISHNAl\IURTHI VASUDEORAO DESHPANDE 
ANDANR. 
... 
v. 
DHRU,VARAJ 
(K. SuBBA RAO ancl RAGIIU]JAH DAYAL, JJ. ) 
.. ' 
1961 
·--
I 
'May,'5. 
. . ---·Hindu La.c-Joint 1amily-Adoption-Rif1htB acquired by.· 
adoptit-e son relatinf! back to date of death of· adoptfre father-
: 
Properl!J-cCollateral succeeding to . co-parcener-lf inherits ·'. 
• / 
absolutely or subject to def<asance. 
. 
Respondent was . adopted by' a widow after· about 63 
years of her husband's. death. The husband had predeceased 
his father, tN' leaving. behind him the said widow -and two 
·sisters K. and S. •On N's death K and S inherited in equal· 
·shares. On K's death her. son succeeded. and· on his death · 
his two sons the present appellants succeeded. to· her share. : .. ' 
The respondent instituted the'. suit for the recovery of 
the proper!ie• from the appellants, alleging . that the immove-
able properties formerly belonged to the ownership of and 
were under the .. Vahiwat of· the joint family of his adoptive 
·father and grandfather respectively. The appellants denied . 
the respondent's right to the 
pfopert~~s contet].cling'' .. ih3t 
K their grandmother was the full owner of the properties 
and thus became a fresh stock pf descent and'. that they 
inherited the properties from their father io whom they had 
been alienated by K their grand_mother ;· .... · . 
· · · · · .·' 
The High Court held . that the alleged alienation by K 
of her share to her son was not binding on the .respondent; -
and further held that the respondent could divest the appel-
lants of the properties which belonged to the respondent's· 
adoptive grandfather. 
· 
· 
. · · 
. 
· 
' 
' 
. 
. 
_ 
_ The ___ question 
\\'as 
\vhether 
the. respondent on his 
adoption, could divest the appellants of the properties of 
. his adoptive father and grandfather; 
. 
. 
.. 
. 
. . 
Held, .that when_ a person is the• 01vner of property 
possessing a title - defeasible on. ·adoption,' not only. that title 
but also the .title of all persons claiming under him will be 
· ~t~nguished on the adoption. 
, 
• 
· · 
~ 
~. · .. · 
The heir of a collateral succeeding to the sole surviv-
ing co-parcener inherits· the property absoluteJy, 1btH subje~t 
to defeasance, and the right in the property dev.olves on his 
.... 
I • 
. -
1961 
Krislmamurthi 
Vasudeorao 
Deshpande 
v. 
1Jft1·u11J(ll'Uj 
Raghubar Dayal 
J. 
i:iUPHEME COURT· REPORTS 
[1962] 
heirs who would take that property absolutely, but still 
subject to defeasauce, as no better title could have been 
inherited, for the character of the property does not change 
from the co-pareenary property to self acquired property, so 
long as there was the possibility of the <lefeasance of the 
absolute title by a widow of the family of the last surviving 
cu-parcener adding a inembcr to the co-parcenary. by adopting 
a sun to her deceased husband. 
8/1rinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and 
Urs. (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1, applied. 
llamc/1andra lianrnant Kulkarni v. Halaji Datto Kulkarni 
I.L.R. 1955 Bom. 837, disapproved. 
' 
Amarendru Afanoi11gh v. Sullatun Singh, 60 I.A. 242, 
<li~CUl)Sed, 
An ant Bhikappa Patil (Al in or) v. Shankar Ramcl1an£lra 
Patil, 70 I.A. 232, discussed, 
C1v1L APPELLATE Ju.RISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 499 of 1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
the August 17, 1954, of the Bombay High Court 
in Appeal No. 236 of 1950. 
Purushottarn Tr-ilcumdas, N. S. Anilchinda and 
M. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants. 
K. R. Bengeri and A. G. 
Ratnaparlchi, for 
the respondent. 
1961. May 5. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by. 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. 
Thi8 
nppeal, 
on 
certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution, 
raises the question, whether Dhruvraj, respondent, 
on his adoption, divests the defendants-appellants 
of the properties of his adoptive father and grand-
father. 
The facts giving rise to this question are as 
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
815 
follows : 
Bandegouda, father of ! he respondent, 
died in 1882, pre-deceasing his father Narasappa-
gouda, who died later in 1892. 
Bandegouda 
left his widow Tungabai, 
who adopted Dhruvraj 
as her son on July 31, 1945. 
Narasapphgouda, on his 
de~th, left two 
daughters, Krishnabai and Shyamabai alias Cham-
avva. 
The two sisters sucr:eeded to their father's 
property in equal shares. 
We are not now con-
cerned with the share of Shyamabai, the respon-
dent's suit with respect to it having been dismissed. 
Krishnabai died on October 21, 19

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.