Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO 174 OF 2007

Lata Baburao Mane & Another    ... Appellants  

versus

Ramachandra Balasaheb Mane (D)  Through Lrs.      ...      Respondents

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1.    This appeal is preferred against final common  

judgment and order dated 27.4.2005 passed by the  

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  in  Second  

Appeal Nos.65 of 2003 and 85 of 2003, whereby

Page 2

2

the High Court dismissed both the Second Appeals  

under a reasoned order.

2.  Baburao Marutrao Mane and his daughter  

Lata Baburao Mane filed Civil Suit No.203 of 1987  

against  the  respondent  Ramchandra  Balasaheb  

Mane  now  deceased,  for  permanent  injunction.  

Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane filed Civil Suit No.73  

of  1988  against  Baburao  Marutrao  Mane   and  

others seeking for partition of the suit properties.  

The trial  court by common judgment and decree  

dated  9.4.1999  dismissed  suit  No.203  of  1987,  

which was for grant of permanent injunction and  

decreed suit No.73 of 1988 which was for partition.  

Challenging the same Baburao Marutrao Mane  and  

others preferred two civil  appeals in Civil  Appeal  

No.161  of  1999  and  162  of  1999  on  the  file  of  

Additional  District  Judge,  Satara.   The  Appellate  

Court dismissed both the appeals.  Aggrieved by  

the  same Baburao  Marutrao  Mane   and   others

Page 3

3

preferred  two second appeals  in Second Appeal  

Nos.65 of 2003 and 85 of 2003 on the file of the  

High Court. Both the Second Appeals came to be  

dismissed  pursuant  to  which  Baburao  Marutrao  

Mane and others preferred the present appeal.

3.   While  issuing  notice  this  Court  by  order  

dated  29.7.2005  restricted  it  in  the  following  

terms:

“Issue  Notice  limited  to  the  

questions  as  to  the  share  which  

Ramchandra  had  in  the  property  

whether the High Court was correct  

in  holding  that  the  adoption  of  

Ramchandra  is  related  back  to  the  

date of his father’s death.”      

4. A genealogical tree is relied upon and  

there  is  no  dispute  to  it,  and  it  is  reproduced  

below:

Page 4

4

Niraji (Died before  

1906)

Ravaji (died without  

heir) Nana

(died without  heir) Rushi

Aba (Died  

Baba (No heirs)

(Died before  1906)

Bapusaheb (Died in  1906)

Baba (died on  

9.7.1909)

Bala (Died on 19.2.1909)

Krishnabai (Wife) Died in 1950

Nanasaheb (Died on 7.8.1950)

SURSINGH

Tanubai Subhadra

Marut Rao Died in 1997

RAMACHANDRA (Respondent No.1) (Adopted by Krishnabai on  

24.2.1947) Died in 2010 – Lrs on Record

BABU RAO  (Appellant)

Lalubai  (Widow) (Died on  6.8.1919) No issues

Page 5

5

5.  Mr.  Vijay  Hansaria,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants  contended  that  the  

appellants are entitled to 75% share and the present  

respondents  namely  the  heirs  of  deceased  

Ramchandra  Balasaheb  Mane  are  entitled  to  only  

25%  share  in  the  suit  properties.  It  is  further  

contended by him that the estate of Babusaheb was  

open to reversioners only in the year 1919 when his  

widow Lalubai died and not in 1906 when Bapusaheb  

died. The other contention raised by him is that on  

adoption  of  respondent  Ramchandra  Balasaheb  

Mane  by  Krishnabai   in  the  year  1947,  the  said  

adoption will not relate back to the year 1909 to the  

extent of divesting  the collateral Nanasaheb who by  

then succeeded to the estate of Babusaheb in the  

year 1919.  In support of his submission the learned  

Dilip (Appellant

)

Pratap  (died) LRs on record  

(Appellant)

Ranjana @  Devyani

(Appellant)

Vandana  (Appellant)

Lata  (Appellant)

Ujwala Sunita

Page 6

6

senior  counsel  placed  reliance  on  the  following  

decisions:

i) Bhubaneshwari  Debi  vs.  Nilkomul Lahiri  [1885 (12) IA 137;

ii) Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs.  Narayan  Devji Kango and ors.[(1955 (1) SCR 1;

iii)  Krishnamurthi  Vasudeorao  Deshpande  and another vs. Dhruwaraj [AIR 1962 SC  59]; and

iv) Govind  Hanumantha  Rao  Desai  vs.  Nagappa  and  Seven  others   (1972)  1  SCC 515)

6.  Per contra Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents  

contended that the trial court, the appellate court  

and the High Court have arrived at a finding that  

there was no partition in  the family  and the suit  

properties  were  joint  family  properties  and  since  

the  properties  were  not  partitioned,  succession  

never  opened  and  Lalubai  had  only  a  right  of

Page 7

7

maintenance and never succeeded to the property.  

It is his further contention that Babusaheb died in  

the  year  1906  and  after  him  Baba  and  Bala  

survived till the year 1909, and their branches  are  

rightly found to be entitled to 50% share each, in  

the suit properties, on the basis of the principle that  

the  adoption  relates  back  to  the  death  of  the  

adoptive  father  and  the  concurrent  findings  are  

sustainable both in law and on facts.

7.  The  contention  of  the  appellants  is  

based  on  the  premise  that  the  dispute  is  with  

regard to the collateral’s property and the relation  

back  principle  would  not  apply  to  the  same.  

Though  the  plea  of  partition  was  raised  by  the  

appellants/plaintiffs,  the  trial  court  categorically  

held that there was no evidence to prove partition  

and the properties remained joint family properties.  

The  said  finding  was  confirmed  by  the  first  

appellate  court  and  then  by  the  High  Court.   As

Page 8

8

there was no partition, succession did not open at  

the time of death of Babusaheb Mane in the year  

1906. As rightly contended by the respondents, his  

widow Lalubai had only a right of maintenance and  

never  succeeded  to  the  property.  Baba  and  Bala  

survived till the year 1909 and they were entitled to  

50%  share  each  in  the  properties  and  on  the  

relation  back  principle  the  adopted  son  namely  

respondent Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane  and the  

appellant Baburao Mane are entitled to 50% share  

each  in  the  suit  properties.   The  properties  by  

inheritance  never  went  to  a  collateral.  The  

contention of the appellants is fallacious and liable  

to be rejected and the decisions cited are  also not  

applicable.   The findings of the courts below that  

the adoption of respondent Ramchandra Balasaheb  

Mane relates  back  to  the  death  of  his   adoptive  

father and    he is entitled to 50% share in the suit

Page 9

9

properties,  are  based  on  correct  appreciation  of  

facts and law and no interference is called for.

8.  There are no merits  in  the appeal  and  

the same is dismissed. No costs.

…………………………….J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

…………………………….J. (C. Nagappan)

New  Delhi; November 18,  2014.