The properties owned by the joint family of Dharma and Miragu passed on to the hands of Dharma who was the sole surviving companyarcener on the death of Miragu.
222 of 1970.
In support of this companytention the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Sawan Ram Others v. Kala Wanti Others, 1967 3 C.R. 687.
Champabai had instituted a suit for maintenance against Dharma and obtained a decree for maintenance.
3 and 17 for companysideration.
After his putative father died, the respondent who was the illegitimate son took possession of all the joint family properties.
On 9.8.1968 she took Pandurang, the 1st respondent, in adoption and immediately thereafter a suit was filed by Pandurang and Champabai in Regular Civil Suit No.
The Act came into force on 1080 21st December, 1956.
Before the said adoption took place, two items of the joint family properties had been sold in favour of Defendant Nos.
Dharma resisted the suit on the ground that Pandurang was number entitled to claim any share in the properties which originally belonged to the joint family in view of clause c of the proviso to section 12 of the Act and the properties which had been sold by him in favour of third parties companyld number in any event be the subject matter of the partition suit.
Aggrieved by the decree of the District Judge, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No.
Under the law, as it stood then, Champabai had only a right of maintenance in the joint family properties.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.1980 of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit.
The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and passed a preliminary decree for partition in favour of Pandurang and Champabai and separate possession of one half share of the joint family properties except the two fields which had been sold earlier in favour of third parties.
Pandurang and Champabai filed an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court before the District Court, Sholapur in Civil Appeal No.
The facts involved in that case were these.
906 of 1984.
457 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi for partition and separate possession of one half share in the properties of the joint family of which Dharma, the appellant herein, and Miragu were companyarceners.
Against the decree of the High Court the appellant therein filed an appeal by special leave before this Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The two appellants thereupon filed a suit for ejectment.
663 of 1971.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court.
663 of 1971.
Miragu died issueless in the year 1928 leaving behind him his widow Champabai respondent No.
In March, 1958, she adopted the second appellant, and some time later, the surviving brother died.
This Court negatived both the companytentions.
V. Deshpande for the Respondent.
One Shamrao, who was governed by the Mitakshara Hindu Law died leaving behind him two sons Dharma the appellant in this appeal and Miragu.
N. Ganpule for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The short question which arises for companysideration in this case is whether a person adopted by a Hindu widow after the companying into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act can claim a share in the property which had devolved on a sole surviving companyarcener on the death of the husband of the widow who took him in adoption.
The first appellant companytinued to live with the younger brother and had an illegitimate son by him, the respondent therein.
