* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 434 OF 1989 Sanjay Kesu Pawar ......Appellant/Orig.Plff V/S. Tukaram Narayan Pawar & Ors. .....Respondents/Orig.Defds --------- Mr. Rahul S. Kate, adv.for appellant. Respondents and advocate absent. CORAM :- SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 21ST NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16th February, 1989 passed by the District Court, Sangli dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.477 of 1983. By the said Appeal, the appellant-original plaintiff had challenged the judgment and decree dated 13th September, 1993 passed by the trial court dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1978. 3. When the Appeal was admitted on 4th August 1989, no substantial * 2 * question of law was framed. It was only observed that both the courts have failed to even discuss the provision of Section 12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and their finding in this behalf is not correct. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the appellants case are as follows : . Original defendant no.8, one Anjubai was the widow of Kesu Maruti Pawar who had died in the year 1966-67. About 10 years thereafter i.e. on 6th February, 1976, the appellant then aged about 9 nine years was adopted by Anjubai by performing the necessary ceremonies and religious rights. On 19th January, 1977 Anjubai executed a sale-deed in respect of the properties at Gat No.760, 777, 803, 809, 742, 537 in favour of respondents no.1 to 7. These respondents are the nephews of Anjubai and cousins of the appellant. The appellant filed the instant suit through his natural father against respondents no.1 to 7 and Anjubai for a direction that his possession of the properties sold under the sale-deed and several other properties mentioned at para-1 of the plaint, be confirmed. In the alternative, he prayed that respondents no.1 to 7 be directed to hand over possession of the properties purchased by them, to the appellant. He had alleged in the plaint that respondents no.1 to 7 had got the sale deed executed from Anjubai by practising fraud and coercion upon her. But the particulars of the fraude and coercion were not stated in the plaint. The appellant led evidence of his natural father and a witness by name Ganpat Dadu Pawar. The respondents and Anjubai did not lead any evidence. On * 3 * appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the appellant had failed to prove his title to the suit properties. He also failed to establish that respondents no.1 to 7 had got the sale-deed executed from original defendant no.8 by fraud or coercion. The court also held that the appellant had failed to prove his possession of the suit properties as on the date of the filing of the suit, Anjubai was the absolute owner of the suit properties. The appellant carried this judgment and decree in appeal to the District Court. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. 5. Mr.Kate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of Section 12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, on the appellant being adopted by Anjubai, he ought to have been deemed to be the child of Anjubai and her husband, with effect from the date of adoption and hence he had a share in the property owned by Anjubai from her husband. The husband of Anjubai had died in the year 1966-67. On his death, Anjubai became the owner of the properties belonging to him and also his share in the four of the properties described at paragraph-1 of the plaint. Even if she were to have any limited interest, by virtue of Section 14(1) of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property became her absolute property. Therefore, the appellant cannot divest Anjubai on any estate vested in her prior to his adoption in view of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as follows : * 4 * “S.12 Effects of adoption.- An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family : Provided that- (a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth. (b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth. (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.” 6. In these circumstances, both the courts below have correctly appreciated the facts of the case and applied the law thereon. There is no need to interfere with the decision. In the circumstances, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]