BHAU ADGAUDA PATIL Vs. NARASAGOUSA TATYA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fads, which have given rise to these appeals, are few and undisputed. The following table indicates the relationship of the parties. Adgouda, the second son of Tatya Patil, was given in adoption in another branch of the family. He suffered from leprosy during the last few years of his life and on the 7 June 1909 he executed a vyavasthapatra whereby he made a provision for the maintenance of his wife and motlier and gave the rest of his property to his natural brother, Narsagouda, who is defendant No. 2 in the suit, by way of gift, lie changed his mind later and on the a September, 1909 adopted his natural sister's son who is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Ho cancelled the vyavasthapatra on that very day and subsequently in July 1910 obtained a release from his natural brother, whereby all his property given by way of gift was reconveyed to him except certain land and a moiety of the house, which defendant No. 2 retained for himself. We are not concerned with the portion thus retained by defendant No. 2 in this litigation. Adgouda died in 1911 leaving a widow Sitabai and the adopted son Bhujgounda. In November 1912, Sitabai adopted the plaintiff, Bhau.

(2.) On behalf of Bhau and as his guardian Sitabai filed the present suit in October 1914 to recover possession of the property of Adgouda from defendant No. 1, the boy adopted by Adgouda during his life-time, and defendant No. 2 who was said to be in wrongful possession of the property in collusion with defendant No. 1.

(3.) In the trial Court and in the Court of first appeal, the plaintiff succeeded on the ground that the adoption of defendant No. 1 by Adgouda was invalid, and that., therefore, the subsequent adoption of the plaintiff by Sitabai was valid. Both the defendants appealed to this Court and the learned Chief Justice, who heard the appeals, held that the adoption by Sitabai during the life-time of defendant No. 1 wan invalid, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. The plaintiff has preferred separate appeals under the Letters Patent. I do not quite understand why there are separate appeals, when they arise out of the same suit, We are not concerned, however, with that point.