Relation back cannot divest vested property after adoption where widow's ownership had already crystallised under estate duty law.

A later adoption by the widow of a deceased sole surviving coparcener did not displace property that had already vested in her on the deceased's death. The doctrine of relation back was held inapplicable to divest vested property, and the widow's enlarged ownership under Hindu law could not be defeated by the subsequent adoption. The distinction between ownership and power of disposition did not assist the accountable person, because the deceased, as sole surviving coparcener, had full power over the property. The property was therefore includible in the deceased's estate under estate duty law, and the claim that it reverted to joint family property was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after an adoption made by the widow of a deceased sole surviving coparcener, the doctrine of relation back could defeat the vesting of property in the widow and prevent inclusion of the property in the deceased's estate under the estate duty law.

Analysis: The adoption was accepted as valid, but the crucial question was its effect on property that had already vested in the widow on the death of the deceased. The decision distinguished cases where adoption occurred before the death of the owner or where the property remained joint family property without prior vesting in any person. It held that the doctrine of relation back does not permit divesting of property that has already vested, and that the widow's enlarged ownership under the Hindu law provisions could not be defeated by a later adoption. The deceased, being a sole surviving coparcener, had full power of disposition over the property, and the distinction between ownership and power of disposal did not assist the accountable person.

Conclusion: The property was includible in the deceased's estate under the estate duty law, and the contention that it became joint family property by reason of the later adoption was rejected.

---