Adoption after vesting cannot divest a Hindu widow's absolute estate; sole surviving coparcener's widow had no half share.

An adoption made after a Hindu widow has become absolute owner of the deceased's property does not divest that vested estate, because an adopted child is treated as the child of the adoptive parent only from the date of adoption and relation back is barred once the property has already vested. In a sole surviving coparcenary situation, the widow had no coparcenary half share; she had only a maintenance right during the husband's lifetime, so the entire coparcenary interest remained with the deceased for estate duty purposes. The commentary states that the adopted son acquired no share and the full property passed on death.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adoption made after the widow had become absolute owner of the deceased's property could divest her of that estate and give the adopted son a share by relation back; (ii) Whether the widow of a sole surviving coparcener had a half share in the estate so as to reduce the property passing on death.

Issue (i): Whether the adoption made after the widow had become absolute owner of the deceased's property could divest her of that estate and give the adopted son a share by relation back.

Analysis: Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of the adoptive parent only from the date of adoption, and proviso (c) bars divesting any person of an estate already vested before the adoption. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 makes a female Hindu in possession of property the full owner thereof. Once the widow became absolute owner on her husband's death, the later adoption could not divest her estate. The doctrine of relation back therefore had no application.

Conclusion: The adopted son acquired no right in the property that had already vested in the widow, and the claim based on relation back failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the widow of a sole surviving coparcener had a half share in the estate so as to reduce the property passing on death.

Analysis: The deceased was the sole surviving coparcener and there was no partition claim by any coparcener. In that situation, the wife had only a right of maintenance during the husband's lifetime and no coparcenary share. The rule applied in cases of deemed partition on a coparcener's death did not assist the accountable person, and the authorities relied on for a half share were distinguishable. The entire coparcenary interest therefore remained with the deceased for estate duty purposes.

Conclusion: The widow had no half share in the estate, and the whole property passed on the deceased's death.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded for the Revenue, the order limiting assessment to half share was set aside, and the assessment made by the Assistant Controller was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An adoption made after property has vested absolutely in a Hindu female does not divest that estate, and the doctrine of relation back does not survive where the adopted child is brought into the family only after the adoptive father's death.

---