DASHRATH RAMCHANDRA KHAIRNAR Vs. PANDU CHILA KHAIRNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an interesting question of law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It arises in this way : Pandu, plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of Manjulabai, the first defendant and Sitabai plaintiff No. 2. On February 25, 1961 by the gift -deed exh. 54, Pandu gifted survey No. 154/2 of Chinchave, taluka Malegaon to the junior wife Sitabai and survey No. 104/3 to the senior wife Manjulabai. Pandu and Sitabai purported to adopt plaintiff No. 3 on July 26, 1964. Manjulabai the senior wife being opposed to that adoption and not having given her consent to the same, a dispute arose and that dispute was tried to be settled by the first plaintiff Pandu and plaintiff No. 2 Sitabai executing an agreement exh. 62 dated August 18, 1964, in favour of Manjulabai, defendant No. 1 whereby Pandu consented to Manjulabai taking defendant No. 5 in adoption. On the basis of the said consent, the first defendant did take defendant No. 5 in adoption.

(2.) DISPUTES having arisen, the plaintiffs filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that defendant No. 5. is not the validly adopted son of plaintiff No. 1 and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of peaceful enjoyment of the family properties excluding the land which is gifted to defendant No. 1. The relief was founded on the allegation that the consent deed or agreement exh. 62 dated August 18, 1964 for adoption of defendant No. 5 by defendant No. 1 was taken by threat and that even otherwise as plaintiff No. 3 was already adopted by plaintiff No. 1, the subsequent adoption of defendant No. 5 by defendant No. 1 was not valid and legal.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have upheld the defendants contention that the adoption of plaintiff No. 3 by the first two plaintiffs is null and void. Both the Courts have further held that plaintiff No. 1 had voluntarily given his consent exh. 62 for the adoption of defendant No. 5 by defendant No. 1 and that the factum of that adoption is also proved. But both the Courts have, however, held that that adoption is invalid having regard to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Since there was no dispute that the gift -deed exh. 54 is valid, the plaintiffs' suit has been decreed by both the Courts. They have also declared that the adoption of plaintiff No. 3 by plaintiff No. 1 also is null and void.