Courts upheld the principle of lawful possession and ownership, and rejected the claim of adoption, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

R.G. Ketkar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. M.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents at length.

2. By this Appeal u/s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), original defendant No. 1 has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 21/08/1987 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Gangapur in R.C.S. No. 57/1983, as also the Judgment and decree dated 31/12/1990 passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in R.C.A. No. 294 of 1987. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ' plaintiff ') for declaration that he is owner of 7 Acres 30 gunthas land of eastern side from G.No. 49, in all admeasuring 15 Acres 21 gunthas, situate at village Mahuli, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad (for short, 'suit land'), as also the Courts below issued injunction restraining original defendants from causing any obstruction to his possession either personally or through their agents. The parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their status in the trial Court. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to the present Appeal, briefly stated are as under.

3. Respondent No. 1 plaintiff instituted Suit inter alia contending that he is owner and possessor of suit land. The genealogy between the parties is as follows :

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that Ramji was father of Patilba and the plaintiff. Ramji had four brothers namely Khandu, Dashrath, Laxman and Kashinath. Kishan and Gopinath are sons of Patilba. Defendant No. 1 Jaiwanta is son of Kishan. Defendant No. 2 Muktabai is wife of Gopinath. Defendants No. 3 and 4, Babasaheb and Raosaheb are sons of Gopinath. Gopinath is absconding. Land bearing S.No. 49 is ancestral land. Name of Patilba was recorded as 'karta'. Patilba and plaintiff were cultivating the land jointly. During the life time of Patilba, there was oral partition. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiff. After the death of Patilba, names of his sons namely Kishan and Gopinath were entered in the revenue record. The suit land was recorded in the name of plaintiff. 7 Acres 30 gunthas land from G. No. 49 was recorded in the name of Kishan and Gopinath by mutation entry No. 307 in the year 1969-70. The plaintiff was cultivating the suit land. As Gopinath was absconding since many years, names of defendants No. 2 to 4 were recorded and they are in possession of 4 annas share i.e. 3 Acres 35 gunthas. Defendant No. 1 is in possession of 3 Acres 36 gunthas. Defendant No. 1 had applied for cancelling mutation entry No. 307 to the Dy. Collector, Vaijapur. The said application was allowed and mutation entry was cancelled. Against that order, the plaintiff preferred Appeal to the Collector. It is the case of the plaintiff that since last 20-22 years, he is in possession of the suit land and defendants have no concern with the same. On 12/04/1983, plaintiff's possession was obstructed by the defendants. In such circumstances, plaintiff instituted Suit for declaration of his title to the suit land and for perpetual injunction for protecting his possession.

5. Defendant No. 1 resisted the Suit by filing Written Statement at Exh. 27. He denied all the adverse allegations in the plaint. In particular, he contended that plaintiff was given in adoption to Kashinath, brother of Ramji and one of the sons of Krishnababa. In view of adoption, plaintiff can not claim any interest in the property of Ramji, his genitive father. Names of Kishan and Gopinath were recorded after the death of Patilba, as they were the only ancestors. It was further contended that after the plaintiff went in adoption, he never claimed any share in the property of Ramji and Patilba. Mutation entry No. 307 was cancelled by Dy. Collector, Vaijapur. In fact, the said entry was made illegally behind his back. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land or part of G.No. 49. Plaintiff is in possession