MAHADVAPPA Vs. CHANABASAPPA PURAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and the question of law involved in it is, whether the alienation made by the sole surviving coparcener while there was a widow in the joint family capable of inducting a child by adoption into the joint family, is binding on the subsequently adopted son by the widow, if the alienation is not made for a purpose binding on the estate of the joint family.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows One Siddappa had two sons, Mallappa and Channaveerappa: Channaveerappa pre-deceased Mallappa leaving behind him his wife Mallawa, Mallappa had a son by name Channabasappa who was given in adoption to one Siddappa Bajigoundar in the year 1914. In the year 1926 Mallappa made a gift of the property in dispute in favour of Channabasapa. However, the property which was gifted to Channabasappa was given to Mallawa, the widow of Channaveerappa for her maintenance. Mallawa adopted the defendant on 8th December 1945 to her husband Channaveerappa: she died in February 1953 and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, i.e. Channabasappa who was given in adoption to Siddappa Bajigoundar, claiming possession of the property in the possession of Mallawa and after her death, in the possession of defendant No.1, on the strength of the gift deed of the year 1926.

(3.) Defendant No.1 who was subsequently adopted by Channaveerappa's widow, contested the plaintiff's claim to recover possession of the suit property. He inter alia contended that the alienation made by Mallappa by way of gift is not binding on him, since the same is not made for a purpose binding on the estate of the joint family and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the suit property on the strength of the said gift deed.