History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.62

v4.c63.t2.62

¹³¹⁸ Vide *Mahableshwar v. Subramanya* 47 Bom. 542. In *Manikbai v. Gokuldas* 49 Bom. 520 (at p. 525) both the cases viz. 40 Bom. 429 and 47 Bom. 542 are apparently quoted with approval, but it is extremely difficult to reconcile the last two cases. If on adoption a separated coparcener is not divested of the estate already taken by him at a partition because the share taken by him cannot be said to be the estate of his natural father within the meaning of Manu IX. 142, the estate taken by a sole surviving co-parcener also cannot be divested by his subsequent adoption, because at the adoption it had ceased to be the estate of his natural father long before the adoption, because when a co-parcener dies his rights lapse to the other co-parceners and because the root cause of being entitled to partition and taking as surviving coparcener is the same viz. the birth right of a son under the Mitākṣarā.