1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.561 OF 2009 Adinath N. Chougule ...Applicant. v. Sonabai wife of Nana Desai and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Shriniwas S. Patwardhan a/w. Ms.Deepti Pawar, advs. For the Applicant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. To state in brief, one Nana A. Desai had two wives, Anjanabai, who died in 1932 and Sonabai, who died in 2004. It appears that Nana had adopted son of his daughter Tarabai in July, 1959 under registered adoption deed. At about the same time, he also executed an agreement in favour of his wife Sonabai whereby he agreed to give her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per year and by the same agreement, he also provided that if he would not make the payment, Sonabai was entitled to take possession of the agricultural lands mentioned in that agreement in lieu of her maintenance subject to condition that she would not dispose off the said property. As Nana failed to pay the maintenance amount, Sonabai took 2 possession of the lands. 2 Later on, defendant no.1 Anna, adopted son of the deceased Nana tried to dispose off some of the lands. Therefore, Sonabai filed Regular Civil Suit No.286 of 2000 for injunction. On 15.3.2004 she died. One Dadaso Patil, son of Lilavati, who was daughter of deceased Nana and Sonabai moved an application for bringing him on record as legal heir of the deceased Sonabai on 11.1.2007. That application was opposed on the ground that the legal heirs were not brought on record within the stipulated period. Thereafter, he made another application dated 7.7.2008 for condonation of delay in filing the application for brining legal heirs on record. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed that application and thereby legal heirs were brought on record. That order dated 10.7.2009 is challenged in the present revision application. 3 On perusal of the application and replies on the impugned order, it appears that delay was caused in making the application for bringing legal heirs because according to the said Dadaso, he could not get the will of the deceased in time. Taking into consideration valuable rights in the immovable property, trial Court felt that it was in the interest of justice to condone the delay and, therefore, delay was condoned subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- and the application was allowed to bring 3 legal heirs on record. The learned counsel for the applicant, who is original defendant, contends that the deceased had only limited rights in the property in view of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, her legal heirs did not get any right in the property and, therefore, defendant no.1 being adopted son of the original owner Nana is entitled to get the property. This question can be looked into at the time of the trial of the suit. Prima-facie, it appears that the deceased plaintiff Sonabai had received the property in lieu of the maintenance, which was her existing right and, therefore, her case may be covered under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. If it is so, her daughters and her deceased daughter’s son may be entitled to succeed to that property. Taking into consideration valuable rights in the suit property, it will not be in the interest of justice to refuse to condone the delay in filing the application for bringing legal heirs on record. The trial Court has considered all the aspects while granting the application and because of the delay, it has also imposed cost. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. In fact, order appears to be in the interest of justice. 4 Therefore, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 4