Honble LAKSHMANAN, C.J.–The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant filed the writ petition to quash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 28.6.74 (Anx. 5), and to restore the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipur dated 18.12.1968 (Anx. 3) and to dismiss the suit of the respondent No. 4 Shanker Lal (Plaintiff).

(2). The dispute in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The facts found by the courts below have not been disputed before us. Before proceeding further to deal with the facts of this case it is better to refer to the family tree.

Ganga Ram

Prithvi Raj Girdhari

Dev Kishan (Son) (petitioner No.1 in writ petition) Hira Lal (Son) (Petnr. No.2 in writ petition) Gulab (son) (Resp. No.5 in writ petition) Bhagwan(died in 1910)

Champa (widow)

Shanker Lal (adopted on 12.12.1959 for herself and to her deceased husband) (Plaintiff)

It is seen from the above family tree that Ganga Ram had three sons Prithvi Raj, Girdhari and Bhagwan. Prithvi Rajs son is Dev Kishan who is petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 in the writ petition. Girdhari had two sons, Heera Lal (petitioner No.2 in the writ petition) and Gulab (respondent No.5 in the writ petition), Bhagwan, the third son of Ganga Ram died in the year 1910 leaving behind his widow Champa. On 12.12.1959, Champa adopted Shanker Lal, the fourth respondent herein-plaintiff in the suit.

(3). Shanker Lal filed the suit for division of holding on the allegation that the suit land originally belonged to their ancester Ganga Ram and it has devolved on the parties who were co-tenants. However, after the death of Bhagwan his two brothers got the land in dispute entered in their own names and during the life time of Smt. Champa widow of Bhagwan they continued to put her off on the pretext that she was a widow and whenever she made adoption Bhagwans 1/3rd share would be got entered in the name of the adopted son. However, even after his adoption Prithvi Raj and Girdhari put Shanker Lal and his mother off on the pretext that they would give possession of their 1/3rd share when Shanker Lal comes up of age but when they did not do so even after Shanker Lal attained majority it compelled Shanker Lal to file this suit for division of holding. The defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. the petitioners contested the suit. However the defendant No.3 admitted the plaintiffs claim.

(4). The trial court found that Shanker Lals adoption was proved but as the adoption took place in 1959 after the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act had come into force Shanker Lal could not divest the property which had already vested in the other two coparceners i.e. Prithvi Raj and Girdhari on the death of Bhagwan in 1910 A.D. The trial court held that under Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act the adopted son Shankerlal was debarred from divesting the property which had already vested in the other two coparceners. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. The dismissal was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority by judgment dated 9.7.1969. Shanker Lal filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that even though the number of male coparceners is reduced to one the property which was jointly owned by the coparceners at the time of death of one or more of them will still continue to be a joint family property and that the property jointly belonged to Prithvi Raj, Girdhari and Bhagwan and, therefore, on the death of Bhagwan the character of the property in the hands of Prithvi Raj, Girdhari alongwith the widow of Bhagwan was still that of joint family property. The Board of Revenue also answered the further question whether on his adoption Shanker Lal became coparcener with the successors of Prithvi Raj and Girdhari. The Board of Revenue held that on the adoption by Smt. Champa, Shanker Lal became the son of Bhagwan and, therefore, a coparcener with the heirs of Prithvi Raj and Girdhari and being a coparcener Shank

Click Here to Read the rest of this document