This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court dated 16th December, 2004 thereby confirming the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 18th July, 2000. Respondent no. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 461 of 1995 against the appellant and other respondents for her one half share in the agricultural land and suit house including business through her deceased father in the Joint Family property. Respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) is a daughter of deceased Trimbak Ramchandra Mahale. Ramchandra had three sons, i.e., Radhakrishna, Trimbak and Digamber. According to the plaintiff, Radhakrishna was given in adoption in one Mor family, therefore, he had no interest or right in the Joint Hindu family. Respondent no. 2Digamber died pending Second Appeal. Hence, his legal heirs are brought on record. Respondent no. 3 is mother of respondent no. 1 (Original plaintiff). She has equal share like her daughter i.e. respondent no. 1. Pandurang Thete, respondent no. 4 has purchased 1H 20R land from the suit field from deceased Digamber and appellant has also purchased 80R from the suit field from Digamber. Somnath, the appellant/defendant no. 2 is a son of Radhakrishna. Trimbak died leaving behind his wife Bhagirathi and a married daughter Ujjawala Sudhakar Pawar. Admittedly, there was no partition in the family. It being the Hindu joint family, Digambar remained sole coparcener after Trimbak. Ujjawal respondent no. 1, Trimbak daughter demanded partition of the property of the share which would have given to Trimbak after the partition. The trial court partly allowed the suit and held that the plaintiff daughter is entitled to ¼th share in the suit property i.e. gat no.665 of village Girnare, admeasuring 3 H. 50 R and also in the house property, bearing grampanchayat number11, village Girnare. The trial court has framed issue in respect of adoption of Radhakrishna and it was held in affirmative. Issue No.3 was that defendant no.3 being son of adopted son Radhakrishna, has no right interest in the suit property and it was answered in affirmative. Share of the plaintiff is to be carved out as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. So at the time of partition, if property would have been partitioned in the lifetime of Trimbak, then the property would have been distributed ½ between Trimbak and Digambar. Trimbak left behind Bhagirathi wife and plaintiff and therefore, ½ share of Trimbak was further divided in two portions i.e. between the wife Bhagirathi and daughter Ujjawala and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share. Somnath was not given anything as it was held that he is a son of the adopted son, therefore he is not entitled to any right in the property.

2. The appellant challenged the said verdict of the trial Court in Civil Appeal No. 316 of 2000 along with original defendant no. 4Pandurang Punja Thete. The first Appellate Court upheld the judgment and order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

3. This Second Appeal was admitted on 21st September, 2005 and substantial questions of law were formulated as follows:

“(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that Radhakrishna father of defendant no. 2/present appellant was given in adoption, when admittedly at the relevant time, during 1915 to 1920, Radhakrishna was only son to his parents i.e. Ramchandra and Narmadabai and prior to year 1956, as per the uncodified Hindu Law, only son could be given in adoption?

(2) Whether the lower appellate Court was in error to hold that the bar under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act will not apply to the present case because plaintiff/appellant is sole heir of deceased Trimbak, specially when it is plaintiff's own case that no partition has taken place between Trimbak and Digamber (male heirs of family)?

(3) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the suit land Gat No. 665 is joint family property of plaintiff's father an