- (1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal by certificate. Plaintiff Daulatrao who died during the pendency of this appeal sought several reliefs in suit No. 5-A of 1955 in the court of the Second Additional District Judge, Amravati. But at present we are primarily concerned with relief No. 1 claimed in the plaint viz: "That it be declared that defendant No. 3 has no right or title to the property in Schedules A, B and 1/2 share in Schedule D and permanent injunction be issued to him not to interfere with plaintiff's enjoyment and possession of property shown in Schedules A, B and 1/2 share in Schedule D."
(2.) The relief claimed does not properly bring out the controversy between the parties. The plaintiff really wanted a declaration that he had not adopted the third defendant, Harishchandra and as such the said Harishchandra has no interest in the plaintiff's properties. The third defendant claimed that he had been adopted by the plaintiff on January 5, 1955. The trial Court held that the adoption pleaded by the third defendant is neither true nor valid. The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) reversing the judgment of the trial court upheld the adoption put forward by the third defendant.
(3.) There was a controversy between the parties as to whether the plaintiff and his brother Champatrao, Defendant No. 1 were members of an undivided family or whether they were divided. Both the trial court as well as the High Court came to the conclusion that there was partition between the plaintiff and his brother in the year 1948. That conclusion was not even challenged before the High Court. Hence there is no need to go into it.;