YAMUNABAI Vs. RAM MAHARAJ SHREEDHAR MAHARAJ PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By interlocutory judgment, dated 11-2-1958, further hearing in these two appeals was adjourned to enable the frst defendant to apply to the State of Bombay for sanction ex post facto to his adoption. the first defendant then submitted an application to the State of Bombay for sanctioning his adoption ex post facto. The first defendant was informed by the under Secretary to the government of Bombay, Political and Services Department, by his letter dated 6-6-1958 that orders granting sanction ex post facto to his adoption by Shri Annapuranabai, wido of late Bala Maharaj, on 14-3-1949 have been ssued, and that the first defendant may "approach the Collector of Kolhapur in that behalf". The first defendant,then, applied for a certified-copy of the order, but none was supplied to him. We are informed by Mr. Gokhale who appears on behalf of the plaintiff, that this client - the plaintiff - also applied for a ecertified-copy of the oprder, but a copy of the order has not been furnished to her. But on the intimation which has been received by th first defendant, we hold that an order sanctioning ex post facto the adoption of the first defendant made on 14-3-1949 by Annapuranabai, widow of Bala Maharaj, was issued by the State of Bombay.

(2.) Mr. Gokhale, who appears on behalf of the plaintiff, contends that under the Vat Hukums issued by the Kolhapur State, no sanction exd post facto could be granteed in respect of an adoption which took place after the year 1930. But in our judgment, it is now too late to entertain the contention having regard to the decisions of this Court. In a recent judgment - Balagonda v. bhimgonda 61 Bom LR 184: (AIR 1960 Bom 7) - it was observed by Mr. Justice Gokhale siting with my learned brother: "Under Political Agent Judi Niyam of Fasli 1281, published in Volume 2 of the Kolhapur Vat Hukums, at p. 817, there was a proviion under which the Kolhapur Darbar could accord sanction to adoptionswhich affected Inam properties. It appears from this Vat Hukum that the Kolhapur Government had power to accord ex post facto sanction to adoptions which were made without getting such a sanction". In several decisions of this Court e.g. First Appeal No. 424 of 1952, Letters Patent appeal No. 60 of 1955 and First Appeal No. 115 of 1953, the privilege of the Kolhapur government to accord sanction ex post facto to adoptions made initially without sanction so as to invest title in respect of Inam properties had been affirmed.

(3.) Mr. Gokhale submitted that even if the sanction was accorded by the State of Bombay upon which devolved the authority of the Kolhapur State, such a sanction will not divest the absolute title vestied in the plaintiff by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. To appreciate this contention, we may review the undisputed facts. Bala Maharaj, the last male holder of the property died on 6th January 1937 leaving him surviving his two widow Annapuranbai and Yamunabai and no lineal descendants and the revenue authorities of the Kolhapur State recognized Annapurnabai as the "Navawali" of te Inam properties. On 14th March 1949, the first defendant was adopted by Annapuranabai as a son to her deceased husband. On 18th March 1949 Annapurnabai die, and to the estate of annapuranbai, which included Inami lands, her c0-widow Yamunabai became entitled by inheritance, because the sanction of the Kolhapur State authorities to the adoption of the first defendant by annapurnabai was notobtained. Proceedings were commenced before the revenue authorities for recognizing the claim of the first defendat as the adopted son of Bala Maharaj, but the plaintiff objected to the claim and the collector of Kolhapur passed an order that the name of neither of the parties may be entered in the Revenue Record and that status quo be maintained till the decision of a of a civil suit adjudicating upon the claims of the parties,. The plaintiff then filed on 17the January 1952 a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolhapur, for a declaration that she was the owner of the properties described in Schedules A, B, C and D annexed to the plaint and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from collecting the rents and profits from his tenants, and also for a declaration that the first defendant was not in fact adopted as a son to her husband by annapurnabai. The suit was partily decreed by the trial Court. The trial Court held that the first defendant was proved to be the duly adopted son of Bala Maharaj and that view was unheld by this Court by the interlocutory judgment dated 11the February 158. It is after the decesion of this Court that on some unspecified date the Government of Bombay have sanctioned the adoption ex post facto of the first defendant, made by Annapurna on the 14th March 1949.