RAMCHANDRA SHRINIVAS Vs. RAMKRISHNA KRISHNARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question which arises for our determination in this appeal at this stage relates to the quantum of the plaintiff's share in the properties in suit. This question has been raised in circumstances and on facts which make it necessary to examine some provisions of the Hindu law of adoption, and it is the consideration of these provisions which has made-this question both interesting and important. The-facts which give rise to the dispute are not many and most of them are true to the usual pattern of adoption cases.

(2.) ONE Shrinivas had two sons, Ramchandra and Krishnaji. Krishnaji died in 1930. After his death Shrinivas and Ramchandra continued to live as members of an undivided Hindu family. In about December 1932 Krishnaji's widow Sundrabai began to think of making an adoption to her deceased husband and it would appear that both Shrinivas And Ramchandra came to know about this intention of Sundrabai. Thereupon Shrinivas and Ramchandra effected a partition between themselves on 9-12-1932. This was followed by a registered deed of partition executed on 1g-12-1932. On this day itself Sundrabai adopted Ramkrishna, who is the plaintiff before us. Shrinivas then proceeded to alienate the properties which had fallen to his share by executing two deeds of gift in favour of Ramchandra's sons Annaji and Dattatraya, and a will in favour of Ramchandra's daughter Renukabai. On 13-12-1934, Shrinivas died, and on 10-1 -1936, the plaintiff brought the present suit in which he claimed to recover his half share in the properties of the family. To this suit be impleaded his own adoptive mother, defendant 1, and Ramchandra, his two sons and his daughter as defendants 2 to 5 respectively. The plaintiff's case was that the partition effected by Shrinivas and Ramchandra between themselves was intendedsolely to defeat his claims as an adopted son and that in fact the said partition had taken place not on 9th December but after his adoption on 16-12 1932. According to the plaintiff the family of the parties continued to be joint on the date of his suit and he wanted his half share in the properties on that footing.

(3.) THE defence naturally was that the adoption itself was invalid having taken place after the partition and that in any case the adopted son was not entitled to claim any share because the coparcenary between Shrinivas and Ramchandra had been terminated by a prior partition between them. The donees under Shrinivas made an additional plea that some of the properties which had been gifted to them and which the plaintiff had put in his suit were the separate properties of Shrinivas and the plaintiff was not entitled to make any claim in regard to them.