Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956 barred the plaintiffs from claiming any share in the properties.
However, the question of partition was number put in issue and, as we shall presently see, the evidence in regard to the partition was also scanty.
It is number necessary to pursue the companyrse of the suit in the lower companyrts.
Defendants 4 and 5 were the main companytestants of this suit.
In 1961 Kadubai the widow of Narsoba adopted Dattu.
Aaubai, the widow of Shanker adopted Vilas.
Shanker died leaving behind him a widow Aaubai.
Ramchandra is the first defendant and his sons are Manik and Moti, defendant Nos.
Soon after the adoptions, Dattu and Vilas filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises for partition and separate possession of their shares in the joint family properties.
Narsoba and Shanker, the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 was number applicable to the parties, as they were residents of the erstwhile native state of Hyderabad.
Among several please raised by them, they also claimed that in 1956 there was a partition between Ramchandra on the one hand and defendants 4 5 on the other.
Shanker died in 1951.
Vasant and Yaswant, defendant Nos.
The factum of the two adoptions was disputed.
It was also claimed that after the death of Narsoba and Shanker the properties devolved on defendants 1 to 5 by survivorship and the plaintiffs were number entitled tc claim any share in the properties.
Raoji, Narsoba and Shanker died in that order.
Narsoba died leaving behind him two widows Subabai and Kadubai.
4 5 are Raojis sons.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Ganoba had four sons, Raoji, Ramchandra, Narsoba and Shanker.
