RAMCHANDRA GANPATI SALUNKE Vs. RAJARAM BAPU MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the original defendant No.1 Ramchandra Ganapati Salunke raises an important question of Hindu Law. Respondent No.2 Mukatabai who was original defendant No.2 died pending the second appeal and her adopted son Rajaram who is respondent No.1 brought on record as her heir. Respondent No.3 Ganpati is original defendant No.3.

(2.) Defendant No.2 Muktabai adopted the plaintiff Rajaram on August 3, 1953. Her husband Bapu died in the year closely related to each other. Rajaram's natural father Tukaram is the full brother of defendant No.1 Ramchandra, Tukaram and Ramchandra are the sons of Ganapati defendant No.2 and his wife Chandrabai. This Chandrabai is the daughter of Sakharam who is the brother of Muktabai's husband Bapu. Ganpati defendant No.3, is the Sakharam. The relationship between the parties would be clear from the genealogy which is set out below: NARU Mukta = Bapu Sakhaream = Bahubai Manjabai (D.2) (d.1947) Rajaram Chandrabai Ganapati (D.3) = Chandrabai) Plaintiff adopted on 3.8.53 (married to Ganpat, Tukaram Ramchandra (D.1) Deft. No.3) Rajaram (Given in adopton Plaintiff) On the date of adoption of the plaintiff Rajaram by Muktabai, another event took place which gave rise to this legislation. On that day, Muktabai sold the two suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 146/2 and 153/1a together admeasuring 3 acres and 19 gunthas by a registered sale-deed for Rupees 2,000/-. This sale-deed is being challenged by the plaintiff in the present petition (sic).

(3.) Mukteabai's husband Bapu was the owner of 20 acres of land after his death Muktabai got this property as his widow under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. The result of the adoption and the sale-deed was that Muktabai and Rajaram retained about 16 1/2 acres of land while Ramchandra, defendant No.1 got the remaining portion of 3 acres and 19 gunthas under the saledeed. At the time of adoption, Rajaram was a minor and he was given in adoption by the plaintiff's natural father Tukaram. On August 20, 1964, the plaintiff filed the present suit challenging the saledeed executed by Mukta in favour of Ramchandra on August 3. 1953 on diverse grounds. The main ground on which this sale-deed was challenged was that Muktabai was a Hindu widow having only widow's estate in the suit lands, and, therefore, was not entitled to alienate it. He challenged the sale deed on the ground that it was not for legal necessity and also was without any consideration. The plaintiff's case was that he being the adopted son, such a sale-deed was not binding on him and he was entitled to get possession of the suit lands as owner thereof.