IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4650 OF 1992 Shri Manohar Laxman Kulkarni, age about 57 years, Occupation Agriculture, residing at Kasegaon, ...Petitioner Taluka Walawa, Dist.Sangli. (Ori.Applicant) Versus 1. Smt.Padmavati Laxman Kulkarni, since deceased through her legal heirs and representatives: (a) Shri Damodhar Ramchandra Garde, Husband of Respondent No.3 (since deceased) residing at Flat No.11, 3rd Floor, "Amrapali", Plot No.75, Off.Relief Road, Santacruz (W), Bombay - 400 054. (b) Mr.Amit Damodar Garde, son of the Respondent No.3, (since deceased), residing at Flat No.11, 3rd Floor, ‘Amrapali’, Plot No.5, Opp.Relief Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay 400 054. (c) Mrs.Aparna Saumil Shah, Daughter of the Respondent No.3 (since deceased) residing at 62 ‘Summer Ville’, Bhulabai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 026. (d) Mrs.Archana Subhas Dhardher, Daughter of the Respondent No.3 (since deceased) residing at ‘Ashirvad" 3rd floor, Plot No.335, 12th Road, Khar, Bombay-400 052. 2. Shri Gangadhar Laxman Kulkarni, Residing at Kasegaon, Taluka Walawa, District : Sangli. : 2 : 3. Sou.Kalindi Damodar Garde, since deceased through her legal heirs : 1.Shri Damodhar Ramchandra Garde, Husband of Respondent No.3 (Since deceased), residing at Flat No.11, 3rd floor, "Amrapali", Plot No.75, Off.Relief Road, Santacruz (W), Bombay - 400 054. 2.Mr.Amit Damodar Garde, son of the Respondent No.3, (since deceased), residing at Flat No.11, 3rd Floor, ‘Amrapali’, Plot No.75, Opp.Relief Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay - 400 054. 3.Mrs.Aparna Saumil Shah, Daughter of the Respondent No.3, (since deceased) residing at 62, ‘Summer Ville’, Bhulabai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400 026. 4.Mrs.Archana Suhas Dhardher, Daughter of the Respondent No.3, (since deceased) residing at ‘Ashirvad’, 3rd Floor, Plot No.335, 12th Road, Khar, Bombay - 400 052. 4. Shri Dattatraya Laxman Kulkarni, age about 59 years, Occupation retired from service, residing at 2, Mangalwar Peth, Shevadewada, A & P Satara, District Satara. 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Walwa Division, Sangli. 6. Addl.Collector & Resident Dy.Collector, Sangli. 7. Addl.Commissioner, Pune Division, ...Respondents : 3 : PUNE. (Org.Opponents) ...... Mr.S.M.Oak for Petitioner. Mrs.Deepa Chavan i/b Mr.A.S.Gadkari for Respondents 1(a) to 1(d) & 3(1) to 3(4). Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Respondent No.4. AND FIRST APPEAL NO.555 OF 2005 Smt.Kalindi Damodar Garde, Age 59 years, Occupation - Business, Residing at Kasegaon, Tal.Walwa, Dist.Sangli, since deceased through her legal heirs : A) Shri Damodhar Ramchandra Garde, Age 74 years, Occupation - Retired, B) Mr.Amit Damodar Garde, Age 32 years, Occupation - Service, Both residing at 11, Amrapali, 3rd Floor, Prabhu Sakhar Sahakari Gruha Nirman Society Ltd., Relief Road, Doulatnagar, Santacruz (West), Mumbai - 400 054. C) Sou.Archana Suhas Dharadhar, Age 33 years, Occupation - Service, Residing at Ashirwad, 3rd Floor, Flat No.335, 12th Road, Mumbai - 400 052. D) Sou.Aparna Somil Shah, Age 35 years, Occupation-Household, Residing at 62, Semerwheel, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400 026. : 4 : E) Shri.Bharatkumar Natwarlal Goradiya, ’ Residing at 262-B, Pranamdhar, 2nd Floor, K.C.Malaviya Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 57. F) Shri.Anand Dattakumar Dharadhar, Residing at Ashirwad, 3rd Floor, Plot No.335, 12th Road, ...Appellants Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052. (Ori.Deft.No.1) Versus 1. Shri Dattatraya Laxman Kulkarni, Age 74 years, Occu - Retired & Agri., Residing at Geet-Govind Apartment, Guruwar Peth, Satara. 2. Shri.Manohar Laxman Kulkarni, Age 65 years, Occu. - Agri., Residing at Kasegaon, Tal.Walwa, Dist.Sangli. 3. Smt.Mangala Gangadhar Kulkarni, Age 60 years, Occu. - Agri., Residing at 220, Somwar Peth, Karad, Tal.Karad, Dist.Satara. 4. Sou.Anagha Abhay Latkar, Age 38 years, Occu. - Agri., Residing at 220, Somwar Peth, Karad, Tal.Karad, Dist.Satara. 5. Shri.Pandurang Yeshwant Aundhakar, Age 48 years, Occu.-Agri., 6. Shri Ashok Sahadev Shelke, Age 48 years, Occu. - Agri., 7. Shri.Dattatraya Shamrao Shelke, Age 48 years, Occu. - Agri., 8. Shri.Manik Maruti Mali, Age 48 years, Occu. - Agri., 9. Shri.Bhimrao Ramchandra Todkar, Age 48 years, occu. - Agri., : 5 : 10.Shri.Janardan Maruti Mali, Age 48 years, Occu. - Agri., 11.Shri.Mahadev Maruti Mali, Age 48 years, Occu. - Agri., 12.Shri.Maruti Pandurang Shingare, Age 48 years, Occu. - Agri., Respondents No.5 to 12, residing at Kasegaon, Tal.Walwa, ...Respondents Dist.Sangli. (2 to 12-Ori.Defts.) ...... Mrs.Deepa Chavan i/b Mr.A.S.Gadkari for Appellants. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.M.Oak for Respondent No.2. ....... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DECEMBER 11, 2006. DECEMBER 11, 2006. DECEMBER 11, 2006. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Judgment will dispose of both these proceedings being Writ Petition No.4650 of 1992 and First Appeal No.555 of 2005. Both these proceedings are between the same parties and raise common question of law. 2. The Writ Petition takes exception to the : 6 : order passed by the Revenue Authorities excluding the names of the sons of Laxman on the ground that they have no right, title or interest in relation to the suit property as they were born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman. On the other hand, the First Appeal arises from the Suit filed by one of the sons of Laxman-born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman-for partition, separate possession and mesne profits as also relief of injunction against the Defendants. The main contest in this Suit was between the sons of Laxman born prior to the date of his adoption and the daughter of Laxman born after the date of adoption. 3. The genealogy of the family in which Laxman was given in adoption in 1935 is as follows: "Narayan @ Naropant Raghunathpant Kulkarni "Narayan @ Naropant Raghunathpant Kulkarni "Narayan @ Naropant Raghunathpant Kulkarni ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ! ! ! ! ! ! Ramchandra Laxman Govind Ganesh Saraswati Saraswati Saraswati Hari Narayan Narayan Narayan Narayan Ganesh Ganesh Ganesh Narayan ! ! ! ! ! Adopted ------------- Laxman adopted in 1935 Laxman adopted in 1935 Laxman adopted in 1935 Pandurang Ramchandra ! ! ! ! ! ! Vishnu Pandurang After adoption Kalindi After adoption Kalindi After adoption Kalindi ----------------------- Adopted by Laxman born in 1938 Laxman born in 1938 Laxman born in 1938 ! ! ! Ramchandra After marriage Kalindi After marriage Kalindi After marriage Kalindi Laxman Laxman Laxman Raghunath Kashinath Garde (dead) Garde (dead) Garde (dead) : 7 : ! ! ! ! ! ! ------------------------ Damodar Ramchandra Garde ------------------------ Damodar Ramchandra Garde ------------------------ Damodar Ramchandra Garde ! ! ! Amit Damodar Garde ! ! ! Amit Damodar Garde ! ! ! Amit Damodar Garde Gangadhar Dattatraya Manohar Sou.Aparna S.Shah Gangadhar Dattatraya Manohar Sou.Aparna S.Shah Gangadhar Dattatraya Manohar Sou.Aparna S.Shah Sou.Archana S.Dharadhar Sou.Archana S.Dharadhar Sou.Archana S.Dharadhar In 1935 Laxman Pandurang was In 1935 Laxman Pandurang was In 1935 Laxman Pandurang was adopted by Saraswati" adopted by Saraswati" adopted by Saraswati" 4. Laxman was given in adoption to Saraswati on 2nd November 1935. At the relevant time, he had three sons Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar aged 4 years five months, two years five months and nine months respectively. After the adoption by Saraswati, Laxman and his wife Padmavati joined the family of Saraswati along with their three sons. In 1938, daughter Kalindi was born to Laxman and Padmavati. The natural father of Laxman, Pandurang, effected partition in respect of the joint family property owned and possessed by him, on 30th December 1948. In the said Partition, claim of Laxman was excluded as he had gone in adoption to Saraswati. 5. On 10th May 1962, Pandurang the natural father of Laxman executed the will which confirms the position of partition. On 10th January 1987, : 8 : Laxman died. It is admitted position that Saraswati predeceased Laxman. After the death of Saraswati, Laxman inherited the property of Saraswati-which property is subject matter of the present proceedings. Soon after the death of Laxman, daughter Kalindi applied to the Revenue Authority for effecting the change in the village records for inclusion of the names of her mother-Padmavati and self as owners with regard to the suit property. Surprisingly, on the following day of the application, the Revenue Authority effected mutation entry No.4702, on 11th March 1987. This mutation entry was challenged by Manohar by way of appeal. The Appeal was partly allowed on 16th March 1989. The Appellate Authority directed the first Revenue Authority to undertake fresh enquiry. This decision, however, was challenged by Kalindi by way of appeal. The said Appeal was partly allowed. The Appellate Authority took the view that the enquiry to be undertaken by the first Revenue Authority should be limited to the factum of possession. Against this decision, two separate Revisions came to be filed. One Revision was filed by Kalindi, who wanted : 9 : restoration of the order passed by the first Revenue Authority and set-aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority directing fresh enquiry into the matter. The second Revision Application was filed by Manohar against the view taken by the Appellate Authority that the first Revenue Authority will undertake limited enquiry. Both these Revision Applications came to be disposed of on 14th February 1992 by the revisional authority. Revision filed by Manohar came to be dismissed. Whereas, Revision filed by Kalindi was allowed. Resultantly, mutation entry No.4702 effected by the first Revenue Authority came to be restored. Against this decision, Manohar preferred second Revision Application before the State Government. The said Revision Application, however, came to be dismissed on 8th September 1992. Against that decision, above said Writ Petition has been filed by Manohar. 6. In the interregnum, widow of Laxman i.e. Padmavati died on 10th October 1992, leaving behind a registered Will dated 31st May 1987 whereunder she gave the property which had come to her share : 10 : to her three sons who were born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman (her husband). That on 20th October 1996, Gangadhar, one of the sons of Laxman and Padmavati, died. It is stated that Kalindi and Manohar took forcible possession of the suit flat. On that assertion, Dattatraya, the second son of Laxman and Padmavati, filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur being Special Civil Suit No.538 of 1996 which has been later on renumbered as 16 of 2001. 7. As mentioned earlier, relief claimed in the suit filed by Dattatraya is for partition, separate possession, mesne profits and injunction. In this Suit, Defendants 5 to 12 came to be impleaded on the assertion that Manohar-Defendant No.2 has created third party rights in the suit property in their favour without any authority. 8. While the said suit was pending before the Trial Court, the Writ Petition filed by Manohar which was pending before this Court against the order of revenue authorities, came up for hearing. : 11 : At the hearing of the said Writ Petition, however, none appeared for Kalindi. This Court proceeded with the hearing of the said Writ Petition on the assumption that all the heirs of the deceased Respondent were on record and represented before this Court. Two questions were essentially addressed while deciding the said Writ Petition. The first question was as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of Section 148 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The second question was purely question of law; and if that question was to be answered in favour of the sons of Laxman born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman, they were required to be considered as the owners of the suit property along with Kalindi - the daughter of Laxman. In that case, their names were required to be entered in the Revenue records along with the name of Kalindi. The question of law was answered in favour of Manohar and against Kalindi essentially relying on two reported decisions namely; in the case of Kausalyabai W/O Jagdeorao Kausalyabai W/O Jagdeorao Kausalyabai W/O Jagdeorao v. Devkabai W/O Jaiwantrao Deshmukh reported in v. Devkabai W/O Jaiwantrao Deshmukh reported in v. Devkabai W/O Jaiwantrao Deshmukh reported in 1978 Mh.L.J. 357 1978 Mh.L.J. 357 1978 Mh.L.J. 357-decision of Division Bench of this Court and the second decision of the Karnataka : 12 : High Court again of Division Bench in the case of Smt.Neelawwa v. Smt.Shivawwa reported in AIR 1989 Smt.Neelawwa v. Smt.Shivawwa reported in AIR 1989 Smt.Neelawwa v. Smt.Shivawwa reported in AIR 1989 Kant.45. Kant.45. Kant.45. The Writ Petition preferred by Manohar was allowed on that basis by Judgment and Order of this Court dated 11th October 2002 as reported in (2003) 3 Mh.L.J. 951-Manohar Laxman Kulkarni v. (2003) 3 Mh.L.J. 951-Manohar Laxman Kulkarni v. (2003) 3 Mh.L.J. 951-Manohar Laxman Kulkarni v. Padmavathi w/o Laxman Ganesh Kulkarni. Padmavathi w/o Laxman Ganesh Kulkarni. Padmavathi w/o Laxman Ganesh Kulkarni. However, after the said decision, Kalindi applied before this Court for review of the order in Writ Petition, inter alia, on the ground that hearing of the Writ Petition could not have proceeded, as Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in the Writ Petition were already dead at the relevant time. It was thus contended that the proceedings were defective at the relevant time; for which reason, the decision passed by this Court was required to be recalled. The said contention was accepted and this Court by order dated 2nd September 2003 recalled the Judgement and Order dated 11th October 2002 passed in the said Writ Petition. In addition, this Court allowed the Writ Petitioner to amend the cause title so as to bring on record all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondents. : 13 : 9. While the said restored Writ Petition was pending final hearing, the Suit filed by Dattatraya came to be disposed of by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur by Judgment and decree dated 13th November 2004. In the said Suit, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as 13 issues. The Trial Court answered the material issues in favour of the Plaintiff Dattatraya and against Kalindi. The main contest of the parties was whether the three sons of Laxman born before adoption in 1935, namely, Gangadhar, Dattatraya and Manohar, were entitled to inherit the property left behind by Laxman after his death. According to Kalindi, as the three sons were born to Laxman prior to the date of his adoption i.e. before 2nd November 1935, they had no right, title or interest in the properties left behind by Laxman and it is Kalindi, being the sole daughter born to Laxman after his adoption, would inherit the same along with Padmavati, her mother. In the Suit filed by Dattatraya, the other issues were whether Kalindi was in exclusive possession of the suit property as claimed by her and whether the Plaintiff proved that Padmavati has executed will : 14 : dated 21st May 1987? However, in the present proceedings, the said issues are not relevant, as this Court is called upon to consider the sole controversy as to whether the sons born to Laxman prior to the date of his adoption were entitled to succeed to the property of Laxman after his death. It is therefore not necessary to burden this Judgment with the other issues considered by the Trial Court in the Suit filed by Dattatraya. 10. As mentioned earlier, the Suit came to be decreed in favour of Dattatraya on 30th November 2004. Against the said decision, Kalindi filed First Appeal in this Court in 2005 being First Appeal No.555 of 2005. As the restored Writ Petition was pending in this Court, it was thought appropriate to hear and decide the Writ Petition and the First Appeal together, as common questions were raised in both these proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition as well as the First Appeal have been heard together and are being decided by this common Judgment. 11. As mentioned earlier, the only question : 15 : that has been canvassed before this Court in the present proceedings is about the eligibility and entitlement of the three sons of Laxman born to him prior to the date of adoption, to inherit the property of Laxman in his adoptive family after his death. The facts referred to above are not in dispute at all. The Trial Court has answered the question in favour of the sons of Laxman essentially relying on two decisions. Firstly, reported in Mh.L.J.1972 Notes of Cases Page 1 in Mh.L.J.1972 Notes of Cases Page 1 in Mh.L.J.1972 Notes of Cases Page 1 in the case of Dundyappa Laxman Karol v. Neelavva the case of Dundyappa Laxman Karol v. Neelavva the case of Dundyappa Laxman Karol v. Neelavva Chandrappa Jarali Chandrappa Jarali Chandrappa Jarali and the other decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Neelawwa Neelawwa Neelawwa (supra) (supra) (supra). Besides these two decisions, reliance was placed on other reported decisions referred to in the Judgment under Appeal such as AIR 1966 SC 1879 AIR 1966 SC 1879 AIR 1966 SC 1879 in the case of Eramma vs. Veerupanna & Ors., AIR in the case of Eramma vs. Veerupanna & Ors., AIR in the case of Eramma vs. Veerupanna & Ors., AIR 1979 Bom.176 in the case of Daddo Atmaram Patil & 1979 Bom.176 in the case of Daddo Atmaram Patil & 1979 Bom.176 in the case of Daddo Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Raghunath Atmaram Patil & Ors., Ors. v. Raghunath Atmaram Patil & Ors., Ors. v. Raghunath Atmaram Patil & Ors., Kausalyabai (supra), Bombay Law Reporter 1939 page Kausalyabai (supra), Bombay Law Reporter 1939 page Kausalyabai (supra), Bombay Law Reporter 1939 page 845 equivalent as AIR 1939 Bom.305 Full Bench 845 equivalent as AIR 1939 Bom.305 Full Bench 845 equivalent as AIR 1939 Bom.305 Full Bench decision in the case of Martand Jiwaji Patil & Anr. decision in the case of Martand Jiwaji Patil & Anr. decision in the case of Martand Jiwaji Patil & Anr. vs. Narayan Krishna Gumast-Patil & Ors. vs. Narayan Krishna Gumast-Patil & Ors. vs. Narayan Krishna Gumast-Patil & Ors. and lastly, 1909 (XI) BLR 797 in the case of Kalgauda 1909 (XI) BLR 797 in the case of Kalgauda 1909 (XI) BLR 797 in the case of Kalgauda : 16 : Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tammangauda Patil Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tammangauda Patil Tavanappa Patil v. Somappa Tammangauda Patil. The Trial Court on the relevant question has essentially found that the succession to the property in the adoptive family of Laxman would open up only after the death of Laxman on 10th January 1987; and the Plaintiff and other two sons would inherit the same along with their sister and mother, though they were born prior to the date of adoption of their father Laxman. This is the core controversy that arises for my consideration in the present matters. 12. Counsel for Kalindi has pressed into service reported decisions to buttress the contention that the sons born to Laxman prior to the date of his adoption cannot stake any claim to the property left behind by Laxman in his adoptive family. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Kalgauda Tavanappa Kalgauda Tavanappa Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra) Patil (supra) Patil (supra). The principle stated in this decision, contends learned Counsel, has been reiterated by the Full Bench of our High Court in the case of Martand Jiwaji Patil (supra) Martand Jiwaji Patil (supra) Martand Jiwaji Patil (supra) and in the case of Tarabai Bhimgonda Patil & Ors. v. Tarabai Bhimgonda Patil & Ors. v. Tarabai Bhimgonda Patil & Ors. v. : 17 : Babgonda Bhau Patil & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 Babgonda Bhau Patil & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 Babgonda Bhau Patil & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 Bom.13. Bom.13. Bom.13. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Sharadchandra alias Ambadas s/o Krishnarao Sharadchandra alias Ambadas s/o Krishnarao Sharadchandra alias Ambadas s/o Krishnarao Deshpande v. Shantabai w/o Sadashiorao & Anr. Deshpande v. Shantabai w/o Sadashiorao & Anr. Deshpande v. Shantabai w/o Sadashiorao & Anr. reported in AIR 1944 Nagpur 266 reported in AIR 1944 Nagpur 266 reported in AIR 1944 Nagpur 266, which decision, it is contended, has dissented from the view expressed by the Full Bench of our High Court in the case of Martand Jiwaji Patil (supra) Martand Jiwaji Patil (supra) Martand Jiwaji Patil (supra). Lastly, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Daniraji Vrajlalji, Junagadh v. Maharaj Daniraji Vrajlalji, Junagadh v. Maharaj Daniraji Vrajlalji, Junagadh v. Maharaj Shri Chandraprabha reported in AIR 1975 SC 784 Shri Chandraprabha reported in AIR 1975 SC 784 Shri Chandraprabha reported in AIR 1975 SC 784. This decision deals with the provision of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. However, the same is pressed into service as the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act are parimateria Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In that case, the Court has taken the view that the provisions of the Adoption Act does not affect the validity of the adoption made prior to coming into force of the Adoption Act. 13. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents (sons) have relied on three decisions : 18 : to support their contention that after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the legal position will have to be reckoned on the basis of the Scheme of the Hindu Succession Act. If so understood, contends Counsel for the Respondents, no fault can be found with the ultimate decision of the Trial Court, which has taken the view that the sons, even if born prior to the date of adoption of Laxman, will be entitled to inherit the property in the adoptive family left behind by Laxman after his death. To buttress this contention, reliance is essentially placed on the decision in the case of Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra), Kausalyabai Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra), Kausalyabai Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra), Kausalyabai (supra), and Neelawwa (supra) (supra), and Neelawwa (supra) (supra), and Neelawwa (supra). Besides these three decisions, reliance is placed on the exposition in the case of Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar & Anr. Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar & Anr. Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar & Anr. v. Sanatan Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1933 v. Sanatan Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1933 v. Sanatan Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1933 Privy Council 155 Privy Council 155 Privy Council 155, which has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in the case of V.T.S.Chandrasekhara Mudaliar (since deceased) & V.T.S.Chandrasekhara Mudaliar (since deceased) & V.T.S.Chandrasekhara Mudaliar (since deceased) & after him his legal representatives & Ors. v. after him his legal representatives & Ors. v. after him his legal representatives & Ors. v. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar & Ors. reported in AIR 1963 Kulandaivelu Mudaliar & Ors. reported in AIR 1963 Kulandaivelu Mudaliar & Ors. reported in AIR 1963 SC 185. SC 185. SC 185. Reliance is also placed on the decision of our High Court in the case of Daddo Atmaram Patil Daddo Atmaram Patil Daddo Atmaram Patil : 19 : (supra). (supra). (supra). 14. Having considered the rival submissions, I shall straightaway advert to the exposition in the decisions pressed into service on behalf of Kalindi (Appellants). The first decision on the point is the case of Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra) Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra) Kalgauda Tavanappa Patil (supra). The Division Bench in this case was called upon to consider the following question : "When a married Hindu, having a son is given in adoption by his natural father, does the Hindu’s son also, like his father, lose the gotra and rights of inheritance in the family of his birth and acquire the gotra and a right of succession to the property of the family into which the Hindu is adopted." (emphasis supplied) . In the first place, it was a converse situation where the relations in the family of birth asserted that the sons born to the Hindu before the date of his adoption, would lose their right of inheritance in the family of his birth along with the Hindu. That is the first part of the question as formulated by the Court in the said case. In fact, the second part of