BAI KESARBA Vs. SHIVSANGJI BHIMSANGJI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship set out the facts of the case and then proceeded:] In First Appeal No. 339 two points are urged, first, that Chhatrasangji by his adoption to the Bhamaria estate did not lose his interest in the Ahima estate, and, secondly, that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming possession of the property on the ground that on the representation of the defendant, he did not make an adoption to himself before he was adopted in the Bhamaria estate.

(2.) In First Appeal No. 338 by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, it is contended that the adopted son must be considered never to have been born in his natural family, that is, he is to be regarded as born in his adoptive family, and therefore, if it be held that defendant No. 1 by his adoption forfeited all his rights of inheritance in the natural family, defendant No. 2, the mother of defendant No. 1, had a right to adopt a eon to her husband on the ground that defendant No. 1 must be considered not to have been born in the natural family and to have been born in the adoptive family, and that an adoption has two aspects, one religious and the other secular, and the adoption of defendant No. 3 is valid.

(3.) In First Appeal No. 422 it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the vanta lands are an appanage of the talukdari properties and partake of its impartible nature, and succession to them is governed by the same principles as the impartible estate of the talukdari of Ahitna, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled not only to the talukdari estate bub also to the vanta lands.