UTTAMRAO Vs. DAULAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following geneological tree will facilitate the understanding of the facts relevant to the decision of the question referred to the Full Bench. Dhabaji _________________________________|_________________________________________ ____ | | | | Gajrabai married to Yamunabai married to Reubai married to Ganabai Jitoba Chandrabhan Laxman | | | | Gangaram Janji _____________________________ | | Ramji x Baijabai Krishnaji x Sitabai (died on (died on (died on (died in 30-11-03) 29-3-19) 29-1-07) 1909) (Propositus) | Zaboo x Bainabai (died on (died in 17-12-05) 1917) | Daulat Defendant 1 (adopted in April 1917)

(2.) THE property in suit once belonged to a joint Hindu family consisting of Krishnaji Ramji and Zaboo. Ramji and Zaboo predeceased Krishnaji leaving their respective widows Baijabai, and Bainabai behind them. Krishnaji, who was thus the last surviving male coparcener of the joint family, died in 1907 leaving his widow Sitabai as his heir entitled to inherit his property as such widow. She held the property till her death, which took place in 1909. The inheritance next devolved on Bainabai, the widow of Krishaji's predeceased son Zaboo, who as the widow of a predeceased sagotra sapinda, was entitled to succeed, under the Bombay School of Hindu law, which is in force in Berar, to the estate of her father-in-law, Krishnaji.

(3.) DEFENDANT 1's principal defence is that he has a lawful title to obstruct, as a duly adopted son of Zaboo his adoption having been made, in April 1917, by Bainabai, in whom the inheritance had vested; and that it was consented to by Baijabai the next immediate reversioner. The plaintiff's contention is that, the adoption being invalid, created no rights in favour of defendant 1. The validity is challenged by him on the grounds: