DATTATRAYA PANDURANG PATIL PAREGAONKAR Vs. RADHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Smt. Kashibai and Smt. Chandrabhaga had died during pendency of appeal and their names be deleted from array of parties. Order accordingly.

(2.) THE interesting question of considerable importance that arises in the second appeal is:

(3.) THE facts, so far as material, are capable of being stated with utmost brevity. One Dattaji resident of village Shiroli, taluka-Hatkanangle within the then Kolhapur State died in the year 1907 leaving behind his widow Radhabai. The said Radhabai in the year 1920 adopted Pandurang as their son. Pandurang had two wives Smt. Kashibai and Smt. Chandrabhaga. No issue was born to the Pandurang from either of the wives and on 14-12-1944 he adopted his brother Shankar. The adoption was notified in the Kolhapur State Gazette on 13-12-1945. On 26th June, 1949 the partition is alleged to have taken place between Pandurang and his adopted son Shankar. On 1st June, 1967 Pandurang died leaving behind his mother Radhabai, his two wives Smt. Kashibai and Smt. Chandrabhaga, and adopted son Shankar alias Dattatraya. Smt. Radhabai (original plaintiff) filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the properties, details of which were given in the plaint and according to her she had half share in the said property and the remaining half share belonged to Smt. Kashibai and Smt. Chandrabhaga, two wives of Pandurang. The case set-out by the original plaintiff was that Shankar alias Dattatraya has no interest in the property and was not entitled to any share since his adoption was not legal and valid. In the suit, the two wives of Pandurang viz. Smt. Kashibai and Smt. Chandrabhaga were impleaded as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively, Shankar alias Dattatraya was impleaded as defendant No. 3 and one Rangrao Rajaram Patil who is alleged to have purchased some property from defendant No. 2 was impleaded as defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs case has been resisted by the defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and according to them the defendant No. 3 was validly adopted by Pandurang. A plea of adverse possession was also set-out by defendant No. 3 with regard to R. S. No. 183/2 and 225/7-B. The defendant No. 1 Smt. Kashibai, one of the wives of Pandurang, supported the plaintiffs case.