The main legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of the validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the implications of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the property rights of the heirs.

1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 152/2000 (Old No. Special Civil Suit No. 54/1992), which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar and also against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 31/2001, which was pending in the District Court, Nandurbar. The suit filed for partition and separate possession of Joint Hindu Family property was partly decreed by the Trial Court. Both the sides challenge the decision in first appeal which was filed by original defendants. The plaintiffs filed cross objection. The cross objection of the plaintiffs was allowed and the extent of share of plaintiffs in the suit properties is increased. Both the sides are heard.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 - Bhagirathibai and plaintiff No. 2 - Sushilabai, daughter of Bhagirathibai, had filed the aforesaid suit. Gorakh Patil was the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the real brother of Gorakh. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are issues of other brother of Gorakh namely Narsu. Defendant No. 5 is a cousin of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 6 is a sister of Gorakh. Defendant No. 7 is widow of Narsu.

3. It is the case of plaintiffs that Gorakh died during lifetime of his father prior to 1970 when he was living in Joint Hindu Family with his father. It is contended that Gorakh had 1/4th share in the suit properties as the properties were ancestral and Joint Family properties of his father. They contended that as successors of Gorakh, they are entitled to that share.

4. It is the case of plaintiffs that Gorakh had no male issue and due to this circumstance, the defendants do not want to give share to plaintiffs. It is contended that plaintiff No. 1 was driven out of Joint Hindu Family house when she demanded the house and when she refused to execute relinquishment document in favour of defendants. It is the case of plaintiff No. 1 that plaintiff No. 2 is married and so, she is living with plaintiff No. 2.

5. It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant No. 3 is claiming himself to be adopted son of plaintiff No. 1. It is contended that plaintiff No. 1 never took defendant No. 3 in adoption and he is a son successor of Narsu. It is contended that no adoption ceremony took place and no document of adoption was prepared by plaintiff No. 1 regarding adoption.

6. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 adopted written statement of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 7 filed similar written statement. They contended that on 22.3.1971 defendant No. 3 was adopted by plaintiff No. 1 and deed was executed by plaintiff No. 1 in that regard. It is contended that the adoption deed was registered and that adoption was never challenged and as no relief is claimed in respect of said adoption, the suit is not tenable.

7. Defendants took the defence that on 1.4.1972 partition was effected and plaintiff No. 1 had signed that document also and mutation was made on the basis of that document. It is contended that due to these circumstances also, plaintiffs cannot contend that there is no adoption and partition has not taken place.

8. Issues were framed on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. Both the sides gave evidence. The Courts below have held that there was no partition. It is held that the so called document cannot be read in evidence as by that document, partition was to be made and it was not registered. The Trial Court held that defendant No. 3 was taken in adoption by plaintiff No. 1 and it was necessary for her to seek declaration in respect of that adoption. By presuming adoption of defendant No. 3, the Trial Court first separated the share of Gorakh and then divided the share of Gorakh between plaintiffs and defendant No. 3.

9. The District Court held that factum of adoption was proved, but the adoption was not valid. Due to this finding, the District Court further held that there was no necessity of getting declaration in respect of adoption and so,