JUDGMENT :

N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikodi, in RA No. 76/1999 wherein the appeal came to be allowed with costs and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as prayed for in the following terms:

"The appeal is allowed with costs.

The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed on the following terms:

The plaintiff is declared as the adopted son of the defendants 1 and 2.

The plaintiff is entitled to the 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

The partition shall be effected as contemplated under section 54 of CPC.

Till the partition is effected by metes and bounds as per law, the plaintiff is entitled to the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with defendant 5 and the permanent injunction is granted against the defendants in this regard restraining them from ousting the plaintiff from the joint possession of the suit land."

2. Earlier to it, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Chikodi (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court') in O.S. No. 267/988 has decreed the suit in part and the operative portion is as under:

"Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.

It is declared that plaintiff is adopted son of deft No. 1 and 2.

The relief of permanent injunction restraining deft Nos. 1 and 2 from causing obstruction of joint possession and enjoyment of plff in suit property is rejected.

The relief of partition and possession of suit property is also rejected."

3. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being a Regular Second Appeal, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether Courts below were justified in holding that the custom in Bombay areas provided for adoption of a person who is aged above 15 years and in particular 20 years and consequently granting the reliefs south for?"

4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are addressed in accordance with their status and ranking before the trial Court.

5. The claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the suit property is agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 1043/1 measuring 6 acres 24 guntas out of which 4 acres 15 guntas situate at Wadgol hamlet of Sadalage village and also Well and Farm House situate in R.S. No. 1043/1 which is more fully explained in Schedule "A". The plaintiff claims that he is the adopted son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In other words, defendant No. 1 is the adoptive father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is the adoptive mother of the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the natural parents of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 adopted the plaintiff on 26.02.1981 as they were issueless and old. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who are the natural guardian consented and gave the plaintiff in adoption. It is stated in the adoption deed that the plaintiff was aged 20 years on the date of adoption. There was a custom and usage since time immemorial in the community of the plaintiff and the defendants for adopting a person above 15 years. The parties to the proceedings belong to shepherd community and major part of them are illiterates. In the circumstances, the adoption dated 26.02.1981 is legal and valid. The plaintiff was looking after and managing the suit properties. That being so, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with the instigation of busy bodies of ill-wishers of the plaintiff made them to neglect the plaintiff and refused to recognize him as adopted son. Because of which, they started neglecting the plaintiff and the initial love and affection towards the plaintiff got disappeared. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 refused to give a share to the plaintiff. It is further contended that they are attempting to sell the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property from the day one of the adoption. The plaintiff came to know that Dareppa Patil has not come in actual possession of the suit land the plaintiff is not a pa