The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoptive mother had acquired a half share in the suit lands under the Act 1937, and the legal heirs of the daughter were entitled to a share in the suit lands as determined by the Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The legal heirs of the legal heir of the original plaintiff, Housabai, are pursuing this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.446 of 1987 dated 19.06.1993.

2. The appellant will be referred to as the 'plaintiff', and the respondents will be referred to as the 'defendants'.

3. The plaintiff's case in brief was that her husband died in 1934, leaving behind her and a daughter. He had landed properties, described in para No. 1 of the plaint (those will be referred to as "the suit lands"). They had no male child. Therefore, on 19.06.1946, she adopted the son of her stepbrother and named him Eknath. She was residing with her adopted son and in joint possession of the suit lands. Her adopted son started harassing her. She turned old. Hence, she went to reside with her daughter for 8 to 10 years. She was treating her with love. Defendant No. 1, in collusion with the revenue officer, got recorded 3 aane and 2 pai shares in her name. She had ½ share in the suit lands. Deceased Eknath sold Gut no. 147 to defendants Nos. 6 to 9 on 25.05.1968 and Gut No. 135 to defendant Nos. 10 to 12 on 30.10.1971. Those sale deeds are not binding on her. The defendants did not give her a share in the income from joint properties. They did not care about her. Gut Nos. 392, 150, and 81 were in possession of the defendants Nos. 1 to 5. She sought partition to the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in April 1976. They denied. Hence, she filed a suit for partition, separate possession, the share in the income from suit fields for the last three years and a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 6 to 12 are not binding on her.

4. Defendant No.1 resisted the suit for herself and her children. She admitted that the plaintiff's husband owned the suit lands. He died in 1934. However, she denied the succession and her possession. She did not deny the adoption of her husband. She admitted that her husband Eknath died on 09.11.1975. She denied her ½ share in the suit lands. The plaintiff had only the right of maintenance over the suit lands. The plaintiff had sold Survey Nos.147, 149 and 150 in 1950 and enjoyed its consideration for her own. Deceased Eknath had filed the suit, stating that the plaintiff had no exclusive right to sell those lands. The said suit was decreed. The High Court maintained the said judgment and decree. The decree was executed, and deceased Eknath got exclusive rights and titles over those suit lands. In those fields, the plaintiff had no right. They prayed to dismiss the suit. In the alternative, they have pleaded that if the Court holds her share, the loss suffered by them in securing the property sold by her be adjusted.

5. The learned Court of the First Instance and the First Appellate Court dismissed her suit.

6. This Court, by order dated 31.08.1994, admitted the second appeal, considering Ground Nos.4 and 5 are substantial questions of law. Those grounds are reproduced below :

"(4) Whether the Courts below acted illegally and contrary to law by not holding that deceased Housabai who died on 11/1/1982 after the death of her adopted son Eknath on 9/11/1975 has got a share in the suit property as per Schedule-I of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(5) The Courts below should have held that since the adoptive son Eknath died prior to his mother Housabai, as per the Hindu Succession Act, Housabai shall get a share in the suit property, and the present appellant, Sulochana, shall get the share of deceased Housabai."

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the theory of relate back does not apply. He would submit that as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (for short ‘Act 1956’), she was not a limited owner. She, being the widow, was entitled to equal share. He relied on the case of Krishnamurti Vasudeorao Deshpande and Another Vs. Dhruwaraj, A.I.R. 1962 SC 59, and argued that the a