LAWS(BOM)-1987-8-23

JOTI DADU NAVALE Vs. MANUKABAI KASHINATH MOHITE

Decided On August 19, 1987
JOTI DADU NAVALE Appellant
V/S
MANUKABAI KASHINATH MOHITE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which the learned Counsel for the appellant succeeded in putting across to the Court was that he is a champion optimist. I will presently mention the nature of optimism.

(2.) The facts are very simple. One Dadu Tukaram Navale had the misfortune of not only having large property, but also an unrealistic bent of mind actuating him to adopt a very young boy of 33 years of age, a married man at that time as his adoptive son. This adopting took place on 9-6-1958. Immediately thereafter, on 29-9-1958, application for mutation of the name of the adoptive son, defendant in this case, came to be made for entering his name in the Revenue Record. Entry in that behalf was made in 29-9-1958 and it was certified on 23-12-1958. Dadu did not live long thereafter to experience the curse of penitence in full. He died on 28-4-1959, living behind the present respondent, plaintiff in the suit, and the present appellant defendant in the suit, as his only heirs. As will be presently pointed out, the plaintiff would be having one-half share in the property and her adoptive brother would be having the other half. But she seems to have received peculiar legal advice, on the basis of which she filed the suit as late as on 13-2-1975 for partition and possession of the property left by her father, which was at that time in the hands of her adoptive brother, the defendant. Unfortunately, an averment was made by her (obviously as per the advice received from her Advocate) that she had only on-fourth share in the property left by her father and she prayed for partition and possession of her said share.

(3.) The defendant filed his Written Statement and contended that he had acquired titled to the entire suit property by adverse possession. As will be presently pointed out, no positive plea of ouster as such was taken by the defendant. All that he stated was that he was in possession of the suit property and that his possession was adverse to that of the plaintiff. On this ground, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.