BABURAO MARUTRAO MANE Vs. RAMCHANDRA BALASAHEB MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocate Mr. Godbole for the appellants in both the appeals and advocate Mr. Walawalkar for the respondents in both the appeals. It appears from the Roznama that both the appeals were to be heard and decided at the stage of admission. Mr. Godbole was asked by me, when he opened his arguments, as to what are the substantial questions of law involved and he referred to Ground Nos. (A) , (F) and (G) in the memo of appeal, which are as under:- a) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that Ramchandra balasaheb Mane was the legally adopted son of Krishnabai particularly when, admittedly, he was a 96 Kuli maratha and taking a son of daughter in adoption was prohibited. F) Whether the Courts below were justified in completely overlooking that the Respondent No. 1 herein had moved an Application for Amendment to the effect that the parties are not 96 Kuli maratha and the said Application for amendment had been rejected and this order has never been challenged by the respondents. In such a situation, respondent No. 1 was estopped from contending that the parties are not 96 kuli Maratha and hence, alleged adoption was void ab-initio. G) Whether the Courts below failed to note that there was sufficient evidence on record indicating that the parties were Kshatriya Marathas i. e. 96 Kuli maratha and there was neither a pleading nor any evidence adduced by the Respondent No. l that the parties are of Maratha (Shudra) Caste.

(2.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment in two suits, that is, before the civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi, two suits were pending bearing Regular Civil Suit nos. 203 of 1987 and 73 of 1988. [these two suits are hereinafter referred to as the first suit and the second suit respectively]. The first suit was filed by the Lata Baburao Mane and her father Baburao Marutrao Mane against Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane and, the second suit was filed by Ramchandra mane against Baburao Mane and Ors. The first suit filed by Lata Mane was for permanent injunction. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 9-4-1999 dismissed the first suit i. e. Suit No. 203/87 which was for injunction and decreed the second suit i. e. Suit No. 73/88 which was for partition. Two appeals came to be filed against the said judgment and decree before the additional District Judge, Satara vide Regular civil Appeal No. 11 of 1999 arising out of a decree for partition and vide Regular Civil appeal No. 162 of 1999 arising out of a dismissal of the suit for injunction. The appellate Court dismissed both these appeals. Hence these two separate appeals. Aggrieved party is obviously the present appellants, because their suit for permanent injunction was dismissed and, the respondent's suit for partition was decreed.

(3.) The dispute substantially relates to the adoption of Ramchandra Mane by krishnabai. According to Mr. Godbole, Mane family is 96 Kuli Maratha and therefore, they are Kshatriyas and, daughter's son could not be taken in adoption and, therefore, Mr. Godbole carved out the aforesaid three substantial questions of law as the basis for his submissions.