MARUTI MAHADU SURYAWANSHI Vs. KESHAV MARUTI SURYWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Latur in Regular Civil Appeal No.162 of 1989, the original defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff has instituted a suit bearing R.C.S. No.267 of 1988 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ausa for declaration as to his status as the adoptive son of the appellant- original defendant and also for a decree of perpetual injunction. Though summons was duly served on the appellant-defendant and though the appellant appeared in the suit through his counsel, he failed to file his written statement. The trial court has directed to proceed with the suit without the written statement of the appellant-original defendant. The learned judge of the trial court, by judgment an decree dated 27.09.1989, dismissed the suit with costs. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent- plaintiff has preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.162 of 1989 and the learned District Judge, Latur, by judgment and order dated 13.11.1991, allowed the said appeal with costs and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge has declared that the respondent-plaintiff is the adoptive son of the appellant-defendant and accordingly, restrained the appellant- defendant from alienating or transferring the suit property. Hence this Second Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the learned Judge of the trial court has rightly observed that the necessary requirements of giving and taking does not find place in the pleadings and in absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, there was no valid adoption. The learned counsel submits that, however, the first appellate authority has wrongly construed the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act , 1956 and decreed the suit.