Absolute ownership under Hindu succession law was not divested by later adoption, and the property formed part of the dutiable estate.

A Hindu female widow's limited interest, acquired on her husband's death and enlarged into absolute ownership under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, was held not to be defeasible by a later adoption of a son. The relation-back principle under Hindu law could not override the statutory vesting of full ownership in the female Hindu. As the property remained part of her absolute estate at death, it passed to the adopted son and was includible in the dutiable estate.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the death of a Hindu female widow who had become full owner of the property under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the subsequent adoption of a son could divest that ownership and prevent the property from passing to the adopted son so as to exclude it from the dutiable estate.

Analysis: The property devolved on the widow on her husband's death after the commencement of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, and on the coming into force of section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her limited interest matured into absolute ownership. The provision grants full ownership to any property possessed by a female Hindu, and that ownership is not defeasible by a later adoption. The principle of relation back applicable under Hindu law could not override the clear mandate of section 14(1), and the authorities relied upon by the revenue supported the view that post-Act adoption does not divest the vested proprietary right.

Conclusion: The adoption did not divest the deceased's absolute ownership, and on her death the property passed to the adopted son and was includible in the dutiable estate. The revenue's objection succeeded.

---