SHIVAJI ANANTRAO DESHMUKH Vs. ANANTRAO DEVIDAS DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the important point, which crops up for consideration is whether the coparcener governed by mitakshara School of Hindu Law is entitled to his share in the coparcenary property in the family of his birth even after his adoption in other family whether his undecieded interest in the said property would continue to vest in him even after adoption by reason of the proviso (b) to Section 12 of he Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The verdict essentially rests on the interpretation of the avoce proviso. However, before adjudicating upon the same, a brief reference to few relevant facts of. the case appear to be necessary.

(2.) ARUNDAS Shivrao Kanegaonkar, was born in the family of Anantrao devidasrao Deshmukh. He was given in adoption in the family of kanegaonkar under the deed of adoption, dated 6-6-1964. In a suit, no. 40/84 filed by one of the sons of Anantrao Deshmukh, in the Court of Civil judge, Senior Division, Nanded, against other coparceners, Arundas made an application, Ex. 39, permitting him to join as one of the defendants in the suit to claim his share in the family property, which had vested in him before his adoption. Both the plaintiff and defendants in that suit resisted this application inter alia contending that on adoption, Arundas has severed his ties with the family of his birth and that no property of his natural family had vested in him on the eve of his adoption, as the same was unascertained and thus the adopted son had no right to seek partition of his undivided share in the coparcenary property of his natural family.

(3.) THE Trial Court, on consideration of dicta in the case of yarlagadds Naidu Amma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in air 1981 AP 19, allowed this application and permitted Arundas to implead himself as one of the defendants in the above a suit of partition and possession. Being aggrieved by this permission, the present petitioner/original plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Application, inter alia, contending that on adoption the adopted son is divested of his all rights in the property of natural family and he could not claim any right in the family property. It is also further suggested that there did not exist any right in the undivided interest in the family property because there was no defined share of adopted son in the coparcenary property which is liable to be enlarged on death and diminished on births in the family. Undoubtedly, the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law and claim is set by one coparcener against the other coparcener in the suit.