1925 (3) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the plaintiff's adoption.
2. Plaintiff's right to withdraw the suit.
3. Proper division of the property.
4. Shares of the plaintiff and defendants in the partition.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Plaintiff's Adoption:
The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of Mahadu Dharmaji (defendant No. 1). Defendant No. 4 contested the adoption, arguing that it was not proven. However, the court found that there was an agreement between the parties on March 13, evidenced by Exhibit 48, which recognized the plaintiff's adoption. The court concluded that the plaintiff was indeed the validly adopted son of defendant No. 1.

2. Plaintiff's Right to Withdraw the Suit:
The plaintiff attempted to withdraw the suit on March 16, but the defendants objected, claiming that the suit had already been adjusted by a compromise. The court held that the adjustment was proven and that the plaintiff could not withdraw the suit to defeat the compromise. The court emphasized that under Order XXIII, Rule 3, if a suit is compromised, the court is bound to pass a decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The court also noted that in a partition suit, a defendant seeking a share is in the position of a plaintiff and thus cannot be deprived of their claim by the withdrawal of the original plaintiff.

3. Proper Division of the Property:
The court had to determine the shares of the plaintiff and the defendants in the partition. The plaintiff argued that the parties were Sudras, and thus, the adopted son and the after-born son should take equal shares. However, the court found that the parties were "Agris" by caste, and it could not be assumed that Agris are Sudras. The court referred to the case of Giriapa v. Ningapa, which held that the adopted son's share is one-fourth of the after-born son's share. The court decided to apply this rule, maintaining the principle of stare decisis.

4. Shares of the Plaintiff and Defendants in the Partition:
The court determined the shares as follows:
- The plaintiff, as the adopted son, would receive 1/21 of the property.
- Each of the three wives (defendants Nos. 3, 4, and 5) would receive 4/21 of the property.
- The inheritance of the deceased defendant No. 1's share would also be distributed in the same proportion.

The court confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal with costs. The cross-objections were not pressed and were also dismissed with costs. The judgment was concurred by both judges, Crump and Coyajee, J.J.