Stanley Batchelor, A C J - (1.)The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are these. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Nana, who was the son of Bapurao bin Vithalrao. On Nana s death, his father Bapurao took an absolute estate in the property by survivorship. Bapurao, however, survived his son only four days. On his death, his widow Laxmibai became entitled for a widow s estate. Bapurao before his death recommended Laxmibai to adopt the Ist defendant, who is Bapurao s brother s son. At the same time there was a grand-daughter, the present plaintiff, to be provided for. Thus at one and the same time Laxmibai by two documents made the adoption of the Ist defendant, and also executed what is termed a will, devising certain property to the plaintiff. The Ist defendant did not appear at the trial of the suit, and the contesting defendants now are alienees from the Ist defendant.
(2.)In the Court of first instance, Mr. V.P. Raverkar, in a careful judgment decreed the plaintiff s suit. That decree was reversed on appeal to the First Class Subordinate Judge, Mr. Kanekar. But of his judgment it will be enough to say that no one before us has relied upon it, and it has appeared extremely difficult to extract from it any intelligible principle.
(3.)The question before us is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the property that she claims. The claim in the plaint is based upon the provisions of the will of Laxmibai. But in reality what we have to consider and determine is the effect of the two contemporaneous documents executed on the 10th June 1895 in the presence of many witnesses. It appears to me indisputable that these two documents must be read together and that, so read, they constitute a single family arrangement disposing of the properties to which they refer. Certain of those properties are specified in the instrument in the plaintiff s favour, while the others are similarly specified in the deed of adoption of the Ist defendant. In this latter deed it is made quite clear that the Ist defendant as the adopted son of Bapurao bin Vithalrao will be entitled, not to the whole property of his adoptive father, but only to that particular portion of it which is described in the document.