NARAYAN TUKARAM KATE Vs. HIRABAI RAMCHANDRA GODSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is preferred by the original defendant no. 4 after having failed in the Regular Civil appeal No. 203 of 1986 filed against the judgment passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division in regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1975. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs while the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are original defendant nos. 2 and 1 respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be addressed by their original status in the suit.

(2.) TO state in brief, it is admitted position that one Tukaram Kate held the suit property consisting of agricultural lands and houses. The said Tukaram died sometimes in 1949-50 leaving behind widow Lalubai and 5 daughters. Plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 and the deceased defendant no. 2 Gangubai were their daughters. In 1954 Lalubai widow of Tukaram adopted defendant no. 4 madhav @ Narayan Kate, who is the natural son of her daughter Saraswatibai. The defendant no. 1 Lalubai died in 1961 leaving behind adopted son defendant no. 4 Madhav and the five daughters. The plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 being daughters of Tukaram filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property. They also challenged adoption of the defendant no. 4. Defendant no. 2 Gangubai had died and her legal heirs supported the claim of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant nos. 1 and 4 filed their separate but similar written statements. According to them, the defendant no. 4 was lawfully adopted son of Lalubai. According to them, the plaintiffs had filed a false suit and they had never claimed any share and partition in the property and they prayed for dismissal of the suit on several technical grounds.

(3.) THE trial Court framed several issues and after hearing the parties, came to conclusion that Lalubai had adopted the defendant no. 4 Madhav @ Narayan in 1954. The trial Court also came to conclusion that no partition had taken place before filing of the suit as alleged by the plaintiffs. The trial Court also came to conclusion that as per law, adoption would relate back to the life time of the adoptive father Tukaram and on his death, property would devolve upon his adopted son and widow Lalubai equally and on the death of Lalubai in 1961, her half share would be inherited equally by the adopted son and 5 daughters in view of the provisions of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the result, the suit to the extent of challenging the adoption of the defendant no. 4 came to be dismissed but it was decreed to the extent of claim of the plaintiffs in respect of their share in the property. The trial court held that each of the plaintiffs was entitled to 1/12th share in the suit property. The defendant nos. 1 and 4 challenged the said judgement and decree in regular Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1986. However, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal.