History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.162.1

v4.c63.t1.162.1

But these decisions have been dissented from in *'Bajirao v. Ramkrishna* I. L. R. (1941) Nagpur 707 and in *K. R. Sankarlingam Pillai v. Veluchami Pillai* I. L. R. (1943) Mad. 309 (F. B.), where it has been laid down that when the surviving coparceners of a joint Hindu family were in possession of the joint family properties which they obtained in a partition among themselves after the death of a coparcener and subsequent to the partition a valid adoption was made to the deceased coparcener by his widow the adopted son was entitled to reopen the partition. They rely by way of analogy on the provisions of Yāj. that the posthumous son can reopen a partition already made and also on that of the disqualified heir when the disqualification is removed and on the dicta in some cases that an adoption dates back to the date of the death of the adoptive father. But no smṛti text and no digest has extended the exceptional rules about the posthumous son and the disqualified heir to a son adopted after partition. Their reasoning as regards the Bombay cases is not satisfactory. It amounts to this that as between the separating co-parceners the coparcenary may be extinct but as to the subsequently adopted son it exists i. e. a coparcenary is extinct and existing at the same time, which, to use no stronger expression, appears rather strange. Besides the general rule is that partition is made only once (Manu IX. 47).