MANOHAR LAXMAN KULKARNI Vs. PADMAVATI LAXMAN GANESH KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Revenue Authorities in relation to the Mutation Entry No. 4702 indicating that the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein as the owners in respect of the suit lands to the exclusion of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 herein. The land in question is situated at Vil-a lage Kasegaon, Taluka, Walwa, Dist Sangli. The said land was originall)owned by the Saraswati Kulkarni. She adopted Laxman G. Kulkarni on 2-11-1935. When that adoption took place, the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 4 respectively were three sons to said Laxman. All the three sons were born prior to adoption. After above said adoption, the respondent No. 3 Sou. Kalindi was born to said Laxman are respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that the said Saraswati predeceased Laxmar whereas Laxman died on 10-1-1987. After the death of Laxman, the respondent No. 3 Sou. Kalindi daughter born after adoption filed application before the revenue authorities for effecting necessary mutation so as tc indicate her as well as name of her mother respondent No. 1 as the owners of the suit land. 7'his application is on the premise that the petitioner-re-; spondent Nos. 2 and 4 had no right with regard to suit land since they were born prior to the date of adoption; whereas Sou. Kalindi-respondent no. 3 daughter was born after the adoption and therefore, the said daughter and the wife of Laxman alone would succeed'to the property.

(2.) AS aforesaid, that application was filed on 10-3-1987 and the concerned officer immediately on the very next day obliged by effecting the ' mutation entry No. 4702 i. e. on 11-3-1987. It presupposes that necessary procedure required for carrying out amendment or changing the mutation entry was not observed.

(3.) BE that as it may, being aggrieved the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer accepted the grievance of the petitioner by order dated 16-3-1989 and allowed the appeal with directions to the Tahsildar to undertake fresh enquiry before effecting the mutation entry in respect of the suit land. Before the first Appellate Authority, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman, yet they would inherit and succeed to the estate of Laxman along with other heirs namely the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein. That contention was accepted by the First Appellate Court as it was substantiated by the petitioner by relying on the decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 556/1968 dated 16-11-1971.