( 1 ) THESE two appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 209/1984 allowing the appeal and decreeing Regular Civil Suit No. 618/1982 for partition and separate possession. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be better if the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.

( 2 ) ONE Tukaram Karvate had three wives viz. Narmadabai, Janabai and bendrabai. Padminibai is the married daughter of Naramabadai. Narmadabai predeceased Tukaram. Tukaram died on 9-3-1955 leaving behind him two widows viz. Janabai and Bendrabai and daughter Padminibai (the daughter of predeceased wife Narmadabai ). Tukaram left behind him agricultural land, house and movable property described in Schedule A attached with the plaint. Soon after the death of Tukaram, Janabai adopted Laxman on 18-6-1955 with the consent of her co-widow Bendrabai. At that time Laxman was about 3 years old. Janabai died on 17-2-1981.

( 3 ) BENDRABAI and Padminibai (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") instituted R. C. S. No. 618/1982 against Laxman (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") for possession of the suit property described in Schedule A and alternatively for partition and separate possession thereof. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Tukaram share of the property left behind by him was inherited by Padminibai and share was inherited by Janabai and Bendrabai together. After the death of Janabai, her share was inherited by Bendrabai. Thus bendrabai and Padminibai have share each in the suit property.

( 4 ) DURING the lifetime of Janabai, the plaintiffs viz. Bendrabai and padminibai had issued notice dated 14-8-1980 (Exh. 27) to her and also to laxman (the defendant) claiming partition and possession of the suit property. Janabai refused to accept the notice. Defendant Laxman, however, replied the same denying the claim of the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed to have been adopted by Janabai. According to the plaintiffs, the consent of Bendrabai was not obtained before the alleged adoption of Laxman. Thus the adoption is invalid and does not clothe the defendant with any right, title or interest in the suit property left by deceased Tukaram. The plaintiffs submitted that if the adoption of defendant Laxman is held to be valid, in that event defendant Laxman is entitled to the share of Janabai only which is th share, plaintiff No. 1 Bendrabai is entitled to th share and plaintiff No. 2 Padminibai is entitled to share. Thus the plaintiffs together are entitled to 3/4th share in the suit property. The plaintiffs therefore, alternatively claimed decree for partition and possession of the suit property.

( 5 ) THE defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs. According to him as per the wishes of Tukaram, he was adopted by Janabai (senior widow) with the consent of Bendrabai (the junior widow) on 18-6-1955. On the same day. Adoption deed (Exh. 36) was executed and was registered. The consent deed (Exh. 37) was executed by Bendrabai on the same day and it was also registered. Thus after the death of Tukaram, the defendant is the sole surviving co-parcener and the property devolved on him. The defendant contended that one year after the death of Tukaram, plaintiff No. 1 Bendrabai left the house and only Janabai was living with defendant Laxman. The defendant was managing the property with help of his natural father Bhikaji. The defendant submitted that Janabai and bendrabai were entitled to maintenance only. Hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition. In fact they are not entitled to any share in the suit property. They do not inherit the property of deceased Tukaram and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) AFTER considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court held that the defendant was adopted by Janabai as the son of deceased tukaram and that the adoption is legal and valid. After the death of Tukaram, janabai and