ANKUSH NARAYAN SHINGATE Vs. JANABAI KOM RAMA SAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 31, 1958 passed by the Civil Judge, Sinor Division. Satara, dismissing the plaintiff special Civil suit No. 10 of 1957,

(2.) THE relevant of facts are as follow: About 40 years prior to 1957 [the date of the suit], one Narayan died intestate of at village Mardhe, living him surviving as his only heirs and next of kin his two windows respectively senior Laxmibai, and Junior Tanubai and one Janabai, daughters to the senior widow Laxmibai. He left 23 properties at villages Mardhe, all or which are mentioned in schedule of properties annexed t the plaint. The two widows appears of the to have mortgaged properties mentioned in serial Nos. 4 to 9 12 to 15 and 17. All these properties were in course, of time redeemed by defendants No. 2 Janabai the daughters of senior widow Laxmbai. The properties in Serial Nos. 20 and 21 were sold in 1937 to defendants No. 3, property serial No. 18, was sold by defendants No. 2 to defendants 4 and 5 in 1950. Property, serial No. 23, was sold by the widow laxmibai died intestate in 1948 The plaintiff case is that Tanubai was residing with the natural father of the plaintiff Taking advantage of absence of plaintiff natural father defendants No. 2 Janabai removed defendants No. 1 Tanubai from the house of the plaintiff with a notice dated December 9, 1957 This notice was received by the plaintiff with on about December 13, 1957 plaintiff gave reply dated December 16, 1957 denying the contentions made by Tanubai in the notice dated December 9, 1957 an contended that plaintiff had been duly adopted by Tanabui Thereafter the on December 31, 1957 the plaintiff field the above special civil suit No. 10 of 1957 for relied of possession of all the prorates mentioned in serial No. 1 to 18 and 20 of 23, and of menace profits amounting of the Rs. 1,000 per years from the dates of the suit till possession and for costs paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint relate to the leadings of the mortgage of the sale of the respect of the leading properties of mentioned of the sale in respect of the property mentioned in schedule annexed to the plaint. The main contention of the for relief of possession of that is made of in the plaint is contained of the possession that is made of the plaint constants of the paragraph of 4 of the plaintiff. The substances of the case that the made of the that para was the defendants on 1 Thanubai had taken the plaintiff in adoption of the on December of the 2, 1956 of after the performances of the necessarily of the rites of the "giving and taking" and performing the necessary rites of the "giving domain the presence of the Bhubands, of the and other people. A photograph of the adoption of the ceremony had been taken of the Yadi had been of the also made of the. The plaintiff natural father vithoba had. With the consent of the plaintiff natural motif given the plaintiff in adoption. A deed of adoption of the given had been executed on December 2, 1957 and the same was registered of the In the first part of the paragraphs of the it was stated that the adoption was in according of the with and under the old Hindu law. In the last part of the paragraph. it was stated. : "in this manner even under the Hindu Law of 1956 the plaintiff its validly adoption of as deceased Narayan and defendants No. 1 and as such he has become of the heir to the entree estate of he deceased Naravan. It is can that the title on which the plaintiff based his suit for possession of the properties last by Narayan was that the plaintiff having been duly adopted to Tanubai, defendants No. 1 was entitled to the all the prepares left by the Narayan. In that the connection, in paragraph 6 of the plaint, he submitted. "since the time of the plaintiff adoption, the possession of defendants of Nos. 3 and 4 ,5 and properties of theirs possession of had been illegal. The plaintiff benighted validity adopted son of decease's of the Nararayan his filing this suit praying of the that possession of the possession of the defendants of should be given to the plaintiff.

(3.) IN connection of with the material allegation made in the paragraph 4 of the plaint the written statement of defendants 1 was as follows: The allegation plaintiffs of the that defendants No. 1 has adopted plaintiff will full comprehension. The substances allegation of the was that the adoption had been brought about of the fraudulently. In that connection, defendants No. 1 Tanabai mad certain allegations facts if paragraphs of the 4 offer written of the statement. The contents was that the "she did not know property whether the documents of the were prepared were in the connections with the adoption something's else. She denied that by reason of the adoption the plaintiff of he come of the entitled to right ownership in the properties of in suit. She rightly pointed out that the owners ship suit properties have vested oft in herself and her co window of the laxmiba of that even before plaintiff adoption the properties of the continued best if that them , and that the plaintiff couldn't deprive them the and properties denied that possession suit properties of the by the defendants the was illegal the other defendant filled contesting written of the statement. They by Tanabai, defendants of the 1. It is the however necessary to notice connections with the details of the facts mentioned of statement of paragraphs 4 plaintiff these written statements have not referred the same and there fine omission to deny allegation facts contained in paragraphs 4.