RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference made under Section 64 (1) of the estate duty Act, 1953, the questions of law referred for our opinion reads:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that only 50% of estate passed on the death of the deceased?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the act of adoption did not amount to disposition under Section 2 (15) read with Section 9 of the estate duty act?" ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, which have given raise to the above questions are these : two persons by names babu rao and venkateswara rao together with their respective wives constituted a hindu joint family. The two brothers constituted a coparcenary. Babu rao died in the year 1945 leaving behind him his widow ahalya bai. The other brother venkateswara rao also died in the year 1947 leaving behind him his widow kalavathi. On and after the death of babu rao and venkateswara rao it appears the entire property belonging to the erstwhile joint family was in possession of" ahalya bai. Kalavathi had instituted a suit claiming her share of the property. Ultimately the matter ended in a compromise decree before this court on 18-10-1968. According to the compromise decree, kalavathi received a sum of Rs. 35,000-00 in lieu of her share in the property. As a result ahalya bai continued to be the owner of the entire property. On 3-5-1975 ahalya bai adopted the accountable person krishnakumar. Thereafter, on 20-7-1975 she died. In his return filed under the estate duty Act, the accountable person stated that only half the property passed on to him on the death of ahalya bai. He claimed that as far as the other half of the property was concerned, he had become the owner of the property even during her life time by virtue of the adoption. Subsequently, the accountable person claimed that actually no property passed on to him consequent on the death ahalya bai and no estate duty was payable. However, the assistant controller of estate duty repelled the contention of the respondent-accountable person and levied estate duty on the entire estate. The matter was taken in appeal by the respondent before the appellate assistant controller. He confirmed the order of the assistant controller. However, the assistant controller of estate duty repelled the contention of the respondent-accountable person and levied estate duty on the entire estate. The matter was taken in appeal by the respondent before the appellate assistant controller. He confirmed the order of the assistant controller. Therefore, the respondent appealed to the appellate tribunal. The tribunal on the question as to whether ahalya bai had become the absolute owner of the entire property was of the view that she did. The tribunal also held that in view of Section 12 (c) of the Act, the adopted son could not divest any person of any estate. The tribunal, however, took the view that on the adoption of the accountable person he became a coparcener in the family and consequently even during the life time of ahalya bai he acquired a right to the property and consequently it can only be said that 50% of the family properties, which were in the hands of ahalya bai, passed on to the respondent-accountable person, and accordingly the tribunal directed that half share of the property could be included for the purpose of computation of estate duty. Thereafter, at the instance of the revenue, the aforesaid two questions of law have been referred for our opinion. ( 3 ) SRI chandrakumar, the learned counselfor the revenue, contended that as ahalya bai had become the absolute owner of the property, particularly in view of Section 14 of the hindu succession Act, and therefore there was no question of the adopted son becoming owner of 50 per cent of the property after his adoption, in the absence of any specific transfer of property by any transfer of such interest by ahalya bai and as no such instrument had been executed by ahalya bai, it was only a case of intestate succession under which the entire property of ahalya bai passed on to the accountable person on her death. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel contended that the view taken by the tribunal that the accountable person became a coparcener in the family of ahalya bai and thereby divested atlcast 50 percent of the share belonging to ahalya bai as a consequence of adoption by ahalya bai, was contrary to the view taken by the tribunal itself relating to Section 12 (c) of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act. The said Section reads:"12. The said Section reads:"12. Effects of adoption: an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family: provided that - (a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth; (b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth; (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption. "as can be seen from Section 12, an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of adoption. This is however, subject to the condition as provided in proviso (c) that the adoptive son shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him before the adoption. Even on the basis that according to the erstwhile hindu law, an adopted son should be deemed to have become a member of joint family and a coparcener on the ground that he should be regarded as a son born to the late husband of the widow who takes him in adoption, even during the life time of the husband of the widow, the said principle stands abrogated by the act. As far as the property right is concerned, proviso (c) gives no room for doubt. According to the said proviso, when a man or a woman takes another person in adoption, by virtue of such adoption, the adopted child docs not divest any right in any property which was vested in the adoptive mother or the father, as the case may be. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dina Ji v Daddi - AIR 1990 SC 1153 . In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dina Ji v Daddi - AIR 1990 SC 1153 . In the above case, the Supreme Court interpreted proviso (c) of Section 12 of the act. The Supreme Court held that proviso (c) of Section 12 of the act departs from the hindu general law and makes it clear that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which has vested in him or her before the adoption. The Supreme Court also held that in the said case the widow concerned, who was a limited owner of the property belonging to hindu joint family has become absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of the hindu Succession Act and the child taken in adoption by her had not the effect of divesting the right in the property which had already vested in her. In the said case, eventhough a deed had been executed by the adoptive mother relinquishing all her rights in the property in favour of the adopted son, still the Supreme Court held that as the deed was not registered the property continued to be that of the widow and did not become the property of the adopted son. The ratio of the aforesaid decision applies on all fours to this case. ( 5 ) SRI a. g. holla, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that ahalya bai had not become the absolute owner of the property before adoption and therefore the question of child adopted by her divesting a portion of the property vested in ahalya bai did not arise. But no such argument can be heard in this reference as the tribunal has recorded a clear finding that ahalya bai had become the absolute owner of the property before adoption and no question of law as to the correctness of the said finding is referred for our opinion. Once the finding that ahalya bai had become the owner of the property prior to adoption stands, the proviso (c) of Section 12 operates and consequently no portion of the property could be said to have been divested from ahalya bai in favour of the accountable person. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first question referred for our opinion in the negative and in favour of the revenue. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first question referred for our opinion in the negative and in favour of the revenue. As a consequence, the second question does not survive for consideration. --- *** --- .