It further held that the respondent companyld divest the appellants of the properties which belonged to the respondents adoptive grandfather and upheld the decree of the trial Court with respect to the property which had gone in the possession of Krishnabai on.
As a preferential heir, an adopted son a divests his mother of the estate of his adoptive father and b divests his adoptive mother of the estate she gets as an heir of her son who died after the death of her husband.
Purushottam Trikumdas, N. S. Anukhinda and Mr. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants.
236 of 1950.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the August 17, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
the death of her father.
499 of 1957.
R. Bengeri and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.
Her son Vasappa, succeeded her and died on February 20, 1934, leaving two sons, the appellants, Krisnamurti and Subbaji.
The appellants denied the respondents rights to the properties companytending that Krishnabai was the full owner of the properties and thus became a fresh stock of descent and thatthe appellants had inherited the properties fromtheir father Vasappa to whom they had been alienated by Krishnabai in 1930.
May 5.
133 of the Constitution, raises the question, whether Dhruvraj, respondent, on his adoption, divests the defend ants appellants of the properties of his adoptive father and grandfather.
The facts giving rise to this question are as follows Bandegouda, father of the respondent, died in 1882, predeceasing his father Narasappa gouda, who died later in 1892.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Narasappagouda, on his death, left two daughters, Krishnabai and Shyamabai alias Chamavva.
Krishnabai died on October 21.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
Dhruvraj, respondent, instituted the suit for the recovery of the property from the two appellants alleging that the immovable properties formerly belonged to the ownership of and were under the vahiwat of the joint family of the above mentioned Narasappagouda Patil and Bandegouda Patil.
RAGHUBAR.
DAYAL, J. This appeal, on certificate under Art.
Bandegouda left his widow Tungabai, who adopted Dhruvraj as her son on July 31, 1945.
The suit also related to declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the Patilki rights in respect of the village Hombal, as the near relative of Narasappagouda.
