https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168381 The court upheld the validity of the adoption of defendant 3 despite the conception of defendant 4. Alienations made by Chanbasappa were examined, with some being set aside due to lack of absolute power of disposal over family property. The court deemed a gift to a stranger of joint family property void but upheld a gift for maintenance of Chanbasappa's widowed daughter. In the competition between an adopted son and a natural born son, the court followed the established rule in the Bombay State, awarding the adopted son a 1/5th share. Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1960 was dismissed, while Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1960 was dismissed except for the 8th defendant's right to maintenance. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:25:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168381 The court upheld the validity of the adoption of defendant 3 despite the conception of defendant 4. Alienations made by Chanbasappa were examined, with some being set aside due to lack of absolute power of disposal over family property. The court deemed a gift to a stranger of joint family property void but upheld a gift for maintenance of Chanbasappa's widowed daughter. In the competition between an adopted son and a natural born son, the court followed the established rule in the Bombay State, awarding the adopted son a 1/5th share. Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1960 was dismissed, while Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1960 was dismissed except for the 8th defendant's right to maintenance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168381