History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.59.2

v4.c63.t2.59.2

The result of these decisions is that the verse of Manu is construed as laying down that though a man may have been absolutely entitled to certain property as a member of one family, on his adoption into another family he loses that estate which then passes on to his heir as if he had died on the day of adoption. This construction of the verse of Manu has not been accepted by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts,¹³¹⁷ which hold that an adoption does not divest any property which has vested in a man previous to his adoption into another family. It may be noted that the Bombay High Court itself gave a decision¹³¹⁸ which is inconsistent in principle with the two decisions cited above, when it held that where a father and his four sons partitioned ancestral family property and one of the sons was subsequently given in adoption into another family, the son so adopted was not divested by the subsequent adoption of the property already taken by the son on partition. In a still later case the Bombay High Court approves of its first decision in 40 Bom. 429 and observes :¹³¹⁹ ' the verse of Manu refers not only to the *riktha* of the natural father but also to the gotra of the natural father. It is quite clear that the gotra of the natural father is vested in the son by his birth. The gotra so vested in the son ceases after the son is given in adoption.