https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273279 The court determined that the disputed property was the plaintiff's self-acquisition, not joint family property, and that the adopted son had a share only in the land, not the house. The attaching creditor could only sell the adopted son's share of the land. The judges agreed that the house remained the plaintiff's separate property. The court awarded costs against the 1st respondent but not the second respondent. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 1926 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 14:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273279 The court determined that the disputed property was the plaintiff's self-acquisition, not joint family property, and that the adopted son had a share only in the land, not the house. The attaching creditor could only sell the adopted son's share of the land. The judges agreed that the house remained the plaintiff's separate property. The court awarded costs against the 1st respondent but not the second respondent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Nov 1926 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273279