As per case facts, the plaintiff filed a partition suit for a share in Schedule B property, which originally belonged to Man Kumari. Man Kumari had adopted the defendant by ... a registered deed. An earlier challenge to this adoption was compromised, resulting in Schedule B property being allotted exclusively to the defendant. The plaintiff contended the property was thrown into the joint family and he contributed to past litigation expenses. The trial court granted the plaintiff a share, but the first appellate court reversed this, ruling the adoption valid and the property exclusively the defendant's. The appeal challenges this reversal. The question arose whether the defendant, after adoption, remained part of his biological joint family for property purposes, entitling the plaintiff to a share. Finally, the Court affirmed the first appellate court's decision, holding that upon adoption, the defendant was completely removed from his biological family for property rights. The property was the exclusive property of the defendant, and the plaintiff was not entitled to a share, his possession being merely permissive.