The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the essential ingredients of adoption and the impact of documentary evidence, conduct of the parties, and legal principles on determining the status of the adopted child in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

M G Giratkar, J.

The Second Appeal was admitted on 9th April, 2007 on the following Substantial Question of Law :-

"When the finding of adoption of the plaintiff being given as son and taken by Fakira be held proved in absence of proof of essential ingredients of adoption?"

2. Present Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below.

The facts giving rise to this appeal can be summarized as under:-

3. The Appellant fled Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1982 before learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat. The said suit was fled for partition and separate possession of the property described in the plaint. The respondents-defendants appeared and fled their Written Statements. Issues were framed. Both parties adduced their respective evidence. Learned Civil Judge [Junior Division] dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant-plaintiff is the adopted son of Fakira Mude and, therefore, he cannot claim interest in the property left by his real father, Mahadeo. Mahadeo and Fakira were real brothers. Mahadeo had three sons, i.e., appellant and defendant nos. 1 and 2. As per the defence of the respondents, plaintiff was given in adoption to Fakira. Fakira was not having any issue. Mahadeo and Fakira partitioned their property. Mahadeo and Fakira were having equal sixteen acres of agricultural land each. The appellant inherited the said property from Fakira. It is the contention of the appellant that he was not given in adoption and, therefore, he has right in the property left by his real father, Mahadeo. Therefore, the suit was fled. Learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Hinganghat, dismissed the suit. Appeal was fled before the District Judge, Wardha. The said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal before this Court.

4. Heard learned Adv., Shri Khapre for the appellant. He has submitted that various documents fled on record show that the appellant was not given in adoption. The Will-Deed executed by Fakira on 30th April, 1955 shows that appellant was not his adopted son. Other documents, i.e., School Leaving Certificate etc., show that appellant is the son of Mahadeo. Learned counsel has pointed out Exhs. 133 to 144 and submitted that the appellant is the son of Mahadeo and not Fakira.

5. Learned Adv., has submitted that issue in respect of adoption was not framed by the trial Court. The basic ingredients of adoption are not proved. Hence, appellant cannot be said to be an adoptive son of Fakira. Learned Adv., has submitted that contents of Will-deed [Exh.133] show that appellant is the cousin of Fakira. There is no dispute that his real father Mahadeo left sixteen acres of agricultural land after his death. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 purchased some agricultural land out of the income of the said property. Therefore, the property purchased by defendant nos. 1 and 3 after the death of Mahadeo becomes a joint family property. The appellant is the son of Mahadeo. Therefore, he is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit property. Learned counsel has submitted that the document executed by Fakira in his lifetime is the most important document which shows that the appellant is the cousin of Fakira and not his son. Learned counsel has submitted that being a real son of Mahadeo, appellant is entitled for his share in the suit property. In support of his submission, the learned counsel pointed out following judgments:-

[a] Neelu Narayani (D) through L.Rs. & others Vs. Lakshmanan through L.Rs. & others, (2000) AIR (SCW) 1949,

[b] Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh & others Vs. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh (dead) by his legal representatives & another, AIR 1969 SC 1076,

[c] Ghisalal Vs. Dhapubai (dead) by L.Rs. & others Dhapubai (dead) wife of Gopalji through L.Rs. Vs. Ghisalal & others, AIR 2011 SC 644,

[d] A. Raghavamma & another Vs. A. Chenchamma & another, AIR 1964 SC 136,

[e] Yesu Sadhu Nimagre & others Vs. Kundalika Babaji Nimagre & another, 1977 MhLJ 130, and

[f] Nandlal Sakharam Vs.