Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 6580 with costs of the suit and future interest at six per cent from the estate of the deceased testator Rao Badadur Khanderao Vishwanath Raste in the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed this amount as the arrears of annuity of Rs. 400 a year payable to her under the will of her deceased father.
2. The claim has been dismissed by the lower Court on various grounds, and we think that this appeal can be disposed of in a very simple manner.
3. The defendant was adopted in 1896, and Ex. 82, the tharavpatra, was executed at the time as constituting an agreement between the natural father of the defendant, who was then a minor, and the adoptive father. One clause of the agreement was to this effect that the adoptive father had made a will; that the adopted boy should act up to the terms of the will, and in case the adoptive father made other wills, the adopted eon should behave according to the terms of the other wills. That clause in effect gave the adoptive father an absolute right to dispose of all his property even after the adoption in any way he pleased. The will under which the plaintiff claimed was made after the adoption. At that time the joint family consisted of the adoptive father and the adopted son, and according to Hindu law the father would have no power to, make dispositions by will of the joint family property.
4. We do not think an agreement of this nature is in consonance with the principles of Hindu Jaw with regard to agreements which can be made at the time of the adoption between the adoptive father and the natural father of the boy taken in adoption. The result of such an agreement would be that the adopted son would lose his right in his natural family, and would either acquire no rights at all, or would only acquire rights which were liable to be defeated, in his new family. The appellant being aware of the difficulty of the tharavpatra endeavoured to rely upon the payments made to her by the adoptive father before he died. Such payments, which as a matter of fact were not disputed by the adopted son and had never been disputed since the death of the adoptive father, could only be considered as gifts in presenti of certain cash, and could not possibly constitute a claim to anything in the nature of an annuity.
5. We agree with the Judge that Ex. 82 offended against the law of minors and the general principles of Hindu law as regards adoption We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.