The legal principle established is that the date of birth in relation to the date of adoption does not exclude an individual from inheriting or succeeding to the estate of the deceased father.

Headnote:
Mutation Entry - Dispute over inheritance rights - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 148
Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose over the inheritance rights to a piece of land. The revenue authorities had passed an order indicating the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as the owners of the land to the exclusion of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman, the original owner of the land.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the revenue authorities' confirmation of the Mutation Entry No. 4702 was improper and that the names of legal heirs and representatives of deceased Laxman should be recorded in the record of rights as per section 148 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4, being sons of deceased Laxman and respondent No. 1, were entitled to succeed to his estate despite being born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that irrespective of the fact that the sons were born prior to the date of adoption, they were entitled to inherit or succeed to the estate of deceased Laxman, citing legal principles from previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and restored the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, directing the Tahsildar to include the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 along with respondent Nos. 1 and 3 by fresh mutation.

JUGDMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Revenue Authorities in relation to the Mutation Entry No. 4702 indicating that the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein as the owners in respect of the suit lands to the exclusion of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 herein. The land in question is situated at Village Kasegaon, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. The said land was originally owned by one Saraswati Kulkarni, she adopted Laxman G. Kulkarni on 2-11-1935. When that adoption took place, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 herein respectively were three sons of said Laxman. All the three sons were born prior to adoption. After above said adoption, the respondent No. 3 Sou. Kalindi was born to said Laxman and respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that the said Saraswati predeceased Laxman whereas Laxman died on 10-1-1987. After the death of Laxman, the respondent No. 3 Sou. Kalindi daughter born after adoption filed application before the revenue authorities for effecting necessary mutation so as to indicate her as well as name of her mother respondent No. 1 as the owners of the suit land. This application is on the premise that the petitioner-respondent Nos. 2 and 4 had no right with regard to suit land since they were born prior to the date of adoption; whereas Sou. Kalindi-respondent No. 3 daughter was born after the adoption and therefore, the said daughter and the wife of Laxman alone would succeed to the property.

2. As aforesaid, that application was filed on 10-3-1987 and the concerned officer immediately on the very next day obliged by effecting the Mutation Entry No. 4702 i.e. on 11-3-1987. It presupposes that necessary procedure required for carrying out amendment or changing the mutation entry was not observed.

3. Be that as it may, being aggrieved the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the grievance of the petitioner by order dated 16-3-1989 and allowed the appeal with directions to the Tahsildar to undertake fresh enquiry before effecting the mutation entry in respect of the suit land. Before the first Appellate Authority, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that although the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and 4 were born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman, yet they would inherit and succeed to the estate of Laxman alongwith other heirs namely the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein. That contention was accepted by the first Appellate Court as it was substantiated by the petitioner by relying on the decision of this Court in (Second Appeal No. 556/1968)1, dated 16-11-1971.

4. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the respondent No. 3 filed appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. The Second Appellate Authority, the Additional Collector and Resident Deputy Collector, Sangli. The second Appellate Authority on the other hand by order dated 25-1-1980 partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 3. The second Appellate Authority observed that the decision relied upon by the petitioner in support of their plea that they have also inherited the estate of Laxman was inapplicable to the present case. Besides, the second Appellate Authority took the view that it was relevant to examine who was in actual possession of the suit land and since there was no evidence brought on record with regard to actual possession of the suit land enquiry will have to be limited to that extent.

5. Being dissatisfied by this decision, both the petitioners on the one hand and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on the other hand preferred two separate revision application before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 14-2-1992 was pleased to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioner and; whereas allowed the revision application preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 3. As a consequence of that order, the Commissioner restored the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis