Adoption cannot divest pre-existing vested property rights where the widow had already become absolute owner before adoption.

An adopted child cannot divest property that had already vested absolutely in the widow before the adoption. Proviso (c) to section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 excludes the earlier Hindu law fiction that an adopted son steps into the position of a natural-born son so as to disturb pre-existing vested rights. As the widow had become absolute owner before the adoption, the adoption did not transfer any part of that estate to the adopted son during her lifetime, and the estate passing on her death was not restricted to 50%.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, only 50% of the estate passed on the death of the deceased.

Analysis: The accountable person was adopted after the widow had already become the absolute owner of the property. Under proviso (c) to section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, an adopted child does not divest any person of any estate vested before the adoption. The statutory rule displaces the earlier Hindu law notion that an adopted son would take the place of a natural-born son in the joint family so as to affect pre-existing vested rights. Once the property had vested in the widow absolutely, the adoption did not operate to transfer any part of that vested estate to the adopted son during her lifetime.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. The adoption did not reduce the estate passing on the widow's death to 50%.

Ratio Decidendi: An adopted child cannot divest a person of property that had already vested absolutely before the adoption, and the earlier Hindu law fiction of retroactive coparcenary consequences stands excluded by section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

---