( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2009 Narayan s/o Limba Dhangar @ Dudhbhate APPELLANT VERSUS Raubai w/o Mahada Dhangar @ Dudhbhate RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.N. Boiwar, advocate holding for Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, advocate for the appellant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent is widow of the appellant’s brother. She filed suit for declaration of ownership and injunction vide R.C.S. No. 24/2003. Her husband, namely, Mahada died issueless in or about 1958. According to her, the family lands were partitioned and no share was given to her. However, on persistent ( 2 ) demand, a piece of land to the extent of northern 18 Ares from Survey No. 9 (Gat No. 9) was given to her by the appellant (defendant) in lieu of her maintenance. An entry of such transaction was recorded in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 330 dated 13-01-1960. Since then, she was in exclusive possession of the said land in her own right. She became owner thereof. The defendant (appellant) obstructed in her possession and as such, she filed suit. 3. On material placed on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that she was allotted the said land in lieu of her maintenance and became owner thereof by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. It was also noticed that she was in continuous possession of the said land since 1960. Hence, the suit was decreed. The first Appellate Court maintained the decree. 4. The only substantial question of law raised in the appeal memo is regarding non-joinder of the adopted son of the plaintiff (respondent). It hardly has any ( 3 ) material impact on the merits of the matter. The adoption by the plaintiff, after the death of her husband will not divest her from her own rights which are culminated as a result of operation of law under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Considering this legal position, there appears no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa836-09