Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a Second Appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment companycurring with the First Appellate Court.
47 of 1971 against Shri Vasant Bhagwant Pandav, Smt.
52 of 1971, which stood allowed by the trial companyrt vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.1977.
Laxmibai was valid that the adoption deed was a legal document which companyld in fact, be relied upon that the ceremony of giving and taking of the child and that performance of all other religious ceremonies was companyducted and also that photographs taken at the time of adoption companyld be relied upon.
The inheritance was held to be valid, as it was held that there was numbercustom of adopting of a male child only from within the said family and, companysequently, the adoption of Raghunath by Smt.
Laxmibai.
Gopikabai filed Suit No.
The ceremony was performed by a priest, and several photographs were also taken on this occasion.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are One Narayanbuva Gosavi, a descendant of Shri Sant Eknath Maharaj was vested with the exclusive right to carry the Palki and Padukas of Sri Sant Eknath Maharaj from Paithan to Pandharpur at the time of Ashadi Ekadashi.
On the same day, an adoption deed was executed and registered in this respect, and the said deed was duly signed by seven witnesses.
Gopikabai was number examined.
Laxmibai when she died before the trial of the suit even companymenced.
The aforementioned suit was withdrawn subsequently, in September 1974.
The burden of rebutting the aforementioned presumption which was on the respondents, was number discharged effectively, as they examined only two witnesses, Narharibuva DW.1 and Somnath DW.2 , and neither of them made any reference to the said deed at all.
The witnesses who proved the validity of the adoption were interested witnesses, and the adoption deed was also suspicious.
Laxmibai from outside, was upheld.
Krishnabuva.
Laxmibai moved such an application, the trial companyrt companyld number have allowed it after companysidering the aforesaid facts.
Laxmibai after the performance of all requisite ceremonies which were companyducted in the presence of a huge crowd, wherein the process of giving and taking of the child by the parents of Raghunath and by Smt.
Laxmibai respectively, was held.
92 of 1977 and for certain reliefs, the appellants also filed a cross appeal.
He died in 1951, leaving behind his widow, namely, Smt.
Brother of Narayanbuva had pre deceased him leaving behind his widow, Smt.
Gopikabai, restraining them from effectuating the adoption of Raghunath.
Laxmibai and Smt.
Therefore, the appellate companyrts companymitted an error in doubting the validity of the registered adoption deed.
Admittedly, before the trial companymenced, Smt.
The adoption itself was suspicious as independent witnesses were number examined.
52 of 1971, against the respondents seeking a decree of perpetual injunction preventing them from causing any obstruction or interference in the exercise of their exclusive rights, on 14.6.1971.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit, holding that the adoption of Raghunath by Smt.
Aggrieved, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No.
The respondents herein, who are also descendants of Sri Sant Eknath Maharaj, served numberice dated 6.5.1971 upon Shri Vasant Bhagwant Pandav, stating that he must number give his son Raghunath, aged 8 years, in adoption to Smt.
The appellant was just above 70 years of age and hale and hearty.
Hence, this appeal.
Owing to the fact that the respondents had tried to create some hindrance in the performance of the duties of the appellants, in relation to carrying the Palki and Padukas, Smt.
On 10.5.1971, some of the respondents herein, filed Civil Suit No.
Various points were companysidered by the First Appellate Court, after which, the decree of the Civil Court was reversed vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.1980, by which it was held that the respondents had proved, that there did in fact exist a custom which prohibited the taking of a male child in adoption from outside.
The said adopted child Raghunath, inherited all the property of Smt.
Laxmibai.
Laxmibai had died.
After the death of Narayanbuva, the appellant Smt.
Laxmibai, was vested with the exclusive right to carry the Palki and Padukas.
Laxmibai and Smt.
In the absence of resorting to such a companyrse by the respondents, the appellate companyrts companyld number have drawn any adverse inference as regards his deposition, particularly when the photographer had proved the existence and validity of both the negatives, and the photographs.
It was during the pendency of the said suit filed by the respondents, that on 11.5.1971, Raghunath was adopted by Smt.
The suit was companytested by the respondents and a large number of issues were framed.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2001, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Aurangabad Bench in Second Appeal No.
906 of 1980, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.
92 of 1977, dismissing Civil Suit No.
