JUDGMENT - P.S. PATANKAR, J.:---Three points arise for my determination in this Second Appeal (i) whether the plaintiff was adopted validly and legally on 18-10-1959? (ii) if validly adopted, then can he have right in the joint family property of his natural birth? and (iii) was the suit within limitation?

Few facts are as follows:---

2. The appellant Devgonda through his next friend by name Nemgonda Balgonda Patil filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the joint family properties of his natural birth. It was alleged that Devgonda was married on 15-5-1946 and was having good health for one year thereafter. However, thereafter he became lunatic and was not mixing with public. His natural father wanted to cut off his ties and to give all the property to his another son, Shamgonda, (defendant No. 1) and therefore, plaintiff was given in adoption to one Shrimati w/o Tatya Patil - defendant No. 2 on 18th October, 1959. The said adoption was invalid and illegal because (1) Devgonda was lunatic, (2) Shrimati died within a period of 3 days after the adoption and therefore it was suspicious, (3) The age of adopted child was more than 15 years at the time of adoption and there was no custom in the family to adopt major person (4) Shrimati had no right to adopt to her husband and she was having no right to sale her property just prior to adoption; and (5) Giving and taking ceremony required for valid adoption had not taken place. It was, therefore, contended that Devgonda did not lose his right to get share in the family properties of his birth as he should be treated as its member. It was contended that the adoption had taken place with a view to deprive Devgonda of his right in the family property of his natural birth and effect should not be given to it so as to deprive him of his right in the family property of his natural birth. Written Statement came to be filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 i.e. defendant No. 1 who inter-alia contended that adoption was legal and valid and Devgonda cannot claim any right whatsoever in the family property of his natural birth after adoption. It is also contended that partition had taken place and lands came to be divided between his father and himself. It was denied that Devgonda was lunatic on the date of adoption or that it had taken place to deprive him of any right in the family property of his birth. It was also contended that the suit was beyond limitation.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit while the Appellate Court reversed the said decree. The Appellate Court held that plaintiff failed to prove that adoption dated 18th October, 1959 was illegal and invalid. It was also held that the suit was beyond limitation as it has not been filed within the period of 3 years, from the date of adoption (The suit was filed on 11-10-1971). The learned Judge held that considering Article 57 of the Limitation Act, it was beyond limitation.

4. Mr. Ingale, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff has very vehemently submitted that adoption of Devgonda on 18th October, 1959 was invalid and illegal and in any case it cannot be considered as valid because it was effected with a view to deprive Devgonda from getting share in the family of his birth. In support of this submission he raised following contentions : (1) Devgonda was lunatic and therefore, he could not have been adopted. Further according to him the finding of the Court below that Devgonda was not lunatic was not correct. In my view, assuming that Devgonda was lunatic on the date of adoption, it cannot be said that the adoption was invalid on that count. Section 6 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act speaks about the conditions for valid adoption. The relevant is section 6(3) which is as follows

"The person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption."

Section 10 of the said Act mentions the persons who may be adopted or who are capable of being taken in adoption and states as follows

Click Here to Read the rest of this document