https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69221 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. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:21:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69221 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69221