Holding

The adoption relates back to the adoptive father's death, and each branch is entitled to a 50% share of the property.

Summary

The case concerned a dispute over the partition of family property involving the appellants Baburao Marutrao Mane and his daughter Lata and the respondent Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane, an adopted son. The trial court and successive appellate courts held that no partition had been effected, so succession did not open at the death of the collateral in 1906; the widow had only a right of maintenance. Consequently, the surviving ancestors (Baba and Bala) were each entitled to a 50% share of the property. The Supreme Court applied the relation‑back principle, holding that the adoption of Ramchandra in 1947 relates back to the death of his adoptive father, giving him a 50% share, the same as the appellant. The appellant's claim of a 75% share was rejected. The Court found the lower courts' findings correct and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the adoption of Ramchandra Balasaheb Mane relates back to the death of his adoptive father for succession purposes.
Whether a partition of the family property had occurred at the time of the collateral's death, thereby opening succession.
What share each branch (the ancestors of the appellants and the adopted son) is entitled to in the suit properties.

Subjects

partitionfamily propertyadoptionrelation back principlesuccessionshare entitlementjoint familyinheritance

Judgment

• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 175

LATA BABURAO MANE & ANOTHER
A

v.
RAMACHANDRA BALASAHEB MANE (D) THROUGH
LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 174 of 2007) B

NOVEMBER 18, 2014

[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

c
Partition - Partition of family property - Extent of
entitlement - There was no partition at the time of death of
the collateral and hence the ancestors of appellants as well
as the respondent who were surviving at that time were entitled
to 50% share - On the relation back principle the adopted o
son (respondent) as well as the appellant were entitled to 50%
share.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: As there was no partition, succession did not
open at the time of death of the collateral in the year 1906.
His widow had only a right of maintenance and never
succeeded to the property. The ancestors of the
appellants and respondents survived till the year 1909 F
and they were entitled to 50% share each in the properties
and on, the relation back principle the adopted son
namely the respondent and the appellant are entitled to
50% share each in the suit properties. The findings of the
courts below that the adoption of the respondent relates G
back to the death of his adoptive father and he is entitled
to 50% share in the suit properties, are based on correct

175 H
A
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.

appreciation of facts and law and no interference is called
•
for. [para 7] [180-C-F]

Bhubaneshwari Debi vs. Nilkomul Lahiri 1885 (12) IA
137; Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango
B and Ors. (1955 (1) SCR 1; Krishnamurthi Vasudeorao
Deshpande and another vs. Dhruwaraj 1962 SCR 813 =AIR
1962 SC 59; and Govind Hanumantha Rao Desai vs.
Nagappa and Seven others 1972 (3) SCR 200 = (1972) 1
sec 515 - heid-inappiicaore~
c
Case Law Reference:

1885 (12) IA 137 held inapplicable para 5

(1955 (1) SCR 1 held inapplicable para 5
D
1962 SCR 813 held inapplicable para 5

1972 (3) SCR 200 held inapplicable para 5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 174
E of 2007.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal Nos. 65 and
85 of 2003.
F
Vijay Hansaria, Rajeev B. Masodkar, Anil K. Jha for the
Appellants.

Shekhar Naphade, Anshuman Sinha, Naresh Kumar,
G Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Shubhangi Tuli, Vatsalya Vigya for
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. This appeal is preferred against
H
~TA BABURAO MANE v. RAMACHANDRA BALASAHEB 177
MANE (D) THROUGH LRS. [C. NAGAPPAN, J ]

final common judgment and order dated 27.4.2005 passed by A
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal
Nos.65 of 2003 and 85 of 2003, whereby the High Court
dismissed both the Second Appeals under a reasoned order.

2. Baburao Marutrao Mane and his daughter Lata Baburao B
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 C
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 D
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 preferred two second appeals in
Second Appeal Nos.65 of 2003 and 85 of 2003 on the file of E
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 F
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 G
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:
H
A
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.
•
SURS!NGH

B
Niraji Ravaji Nana Hushi
{Died before 1906) (d~d witllout ~ir) (died without hetrl

c
...
{Died before19061 ''"'
!No heirs)
Bapusaheb
{Died in 1906)
!Died before1906l

•.•. -1
(died on 9.7.1~
"'''
!Died on 19 2.19091
lalubai (Widow)
(Died on 6.8.1919)
J
No issues

l(rishnaba< (Wife)
D Nana~heb Died in 19'>0
(Died on 7.8.1950)

Marut bo Subhadra
Died in 1997
RAMACHANORA (Respondent No.1)
(Adopted by Krishnaba1 on 24.2.1947)
E [ BABU RAO
(A~Hant)
Died in 2010- lrs on Record

EJ
Dohp "'a11p (dlflll hn~n• IP ~•ni
1~i.nt1 LRs on r«ord (Al)poll•ntl !A111Wl~n1)

F

G

H
• LATA BABURAO MANE v. RAMACHANDRA BALASAHEB 179
MANE (D) THROUGH LRS. [C. NAGAPPAN, J ]

5. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing A
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 bnly
25% share in the suit properties. It is further contended by him
that the estate of Babusaheb was open to reversioners only in B
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 C
Nanasaheb who by then succeeded to the estate of Babusaheb
in the year 1919. In support of his submission the learned senior
counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Bhubaneshwari Debi vs. Nilkomul Lahiri [1885
0
(12) IA 137;

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

(iii) Krishnamurthi Vasudeorao Deshpande and E
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 F
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 G
only a right of 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 H
A
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R.

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
8 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
C family properties. The said finding was confirmed by the first
appellate court and then by the High Court. As 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
0
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
E 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
F in the suit 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.
G
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal dismissed.