BHALCHANDRA LAXMAN Vs. BALKRISHNA NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two first appeals are filed against at the judgment of the learned 2nd Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Kolhapur who decreed the plaintiff's suit. One Madhav Narayan Potnis died in the year 1904 leaving him surviving his two widows, one Radhabai and one Gangabai. Radhabai was the senior widow. Prior to her death in 1927, Radhabai adopted one Chandrashekhar as a son to her husband, Madhav. Chandrashekhar also died unmarried in the year 1929. The estate of Madhav thereupon devolved upon Gangabai, the junior widow, not as the mother of the deceased Chandrashekhar but as the widow of and gotraja sapinda, she being in the position of the step mother of Chandrashekhar. Gangabai in her turn adopted Balkrishna, the plaintiff, on 14-2-1939, as a son to her deceased husband Madhav. This suit was filed on 23-3-1942, by the plaintiff, Balkrishna, for possession of the properties belonging to the estate of Madhav and for future means profits and costs of the suit.

(2.) THERE were various defences taken up including those whether Chandrashekhar had beed validly adopted by Radhabai, whether Balkrishna himself was validly adopted by Gangabai and whether the defendants had become the owners of the suit properties by adverse possession. The learned trial Judge held that Radhabai had validly adopted Chandrashekhar and that Gangabai had validly adopted Balkrishna, the plaintiff. He negatived the contention of the defendants, that they had become the owners of the suit properties by adverse possession, and accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff the decree from which these first appeals have been filed. Defendants 2, 9, 5 and 6 who were the real contesting defendants filed First Appeal No. 356 of 1949 from the judgment of the learned trial Judge, contending that Gangabai had no authority to adopt Balkrishna, the plaintiff, as a eon to her deceased husband, Madhav, and that therefore the plaintiff's adoption was not valid. It may be noted in passing that the factum of the adoption was not disputed before us. The only question which was canvassed before us was the validity of the adoption. The plaintiff also filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Judge, being First Appeal No. 373 of 1949, contending that the exception made in regard to certain Revenue 3. Nos. and certain Yaphas from other Revenue S. Nos. was not justified. These are the appeals which have come for hearing and final disposal before us.

(3.) THE main contest between the parties is as to whether there was a valid adoption of Balkrishna, the plaintiff, by Gangabai. The validity or otherwise of the adoption falls to be deter-mined on a true construction of the relevant provisions of the Digest o? Hindu Law, Kolhapur, 1920. It is well known that this Digest of Hindu Law was taken bodily from Sir Dinshah Mulla's Hindu Law. 1919 edition. The parties at Kolhapur were governed by the provisions of this Digest of Hindu Law styled "hindu Kayadyache Nibandh, Kolhapur. " This is the digest of Hindu law which has got to be referred to in order to determine whether the adoption of Balkrishna, the plaintiff, by Gangabai was valid. We would not be justified in traveling beyond the scope of this digest. Our attention has not been drawn to any authority which has laid down that over and above this Digest we have also got to be guided by the general principles of Hindu law as administered in the Province of Bombay. Whatever may have been the position as it obtained in the Province of Bombay after 1920 did not affect the Kolhapur State. The subjects of Kolhapur State continued to be governed by the Digest of Hindu Law which was adopted by the Kolhapur State in 1920. Whatever may have been the position of the subjects of the Province of Bombay with regard to the application of the general principles of Hindu law did not avail the subjects of the Kolhapur State. Their rights and obligations under this personal law were governed by the Hindu Kayadyache Nibandh, Kolhapur, 1920. We shall, therefore, discard from our consideration whatever may have been state in Sir Dinshah Mulla's Hindu Law. 1919 edition, or the decisions of our Courts here even though they might have been pronounced prior to 1920 but shall be guided only by the provisions of this Digest of Hindu Law which laid down the law as applicable to the Hindu subjects of the Kolhapur State.