https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276068 The court found the adoption of the plaintiff by Gangabai to be valid, holding that it did not divest the vested property of Keshav. The adoption was deemed to have vested the family property in the adopted son, displacing any title based on inheritance from Keshav. The plaintiff was entitled to both the watan property and separate property of Keshav. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the Subordinate Judge's decree, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs. en-us Mon, 26 Jul 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:00:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276068 The court found the adoption of the plaintiff by Gangabai to be valid, holding that it did not divest the vested property of Keshav. The adoption was deemed to have vested the family property in the adopted son, displacing any title based on inheritance from Keshav. The plaintiff was entitled to both the watan property and separate property of Keshav. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the Subordinate Judge's decree, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Jul 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276068