Supreme Court Affirms Adoption, Defines Property Rights, Grants Ancestral Plots

The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the plaintiff's adoption and ruled that certain properties were ancestral while others were self-acquired. Admissibility of specific documents was denied. The plaintiff was granted half the value of designated plots as ancestral properties. The claim to properties inherited from a collateral was rejected, and the allegation of blending properties with joint family assets was dismissed. The lower court's decree was largely upheld, with the plaintiff receiving a modified decree for specific ancestral plots. Each party was responsible for their own costs in the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and truth of the plaintiff's adoption.
2. Nature of the properties (ancestral or self-acquired).
3. Admissibility of certain documents as evidence.
4. Plaintiff's entitlement to specific plots and properties.
5. Plaintiff's claim to properties inherited from a collateral.
6. Allegation of blending of properties with joint family properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Truth of the Plaintiff's Adoption:
Both the trial court and the High Court held that the adoption of the plaintiff was true and valid. This fact was not disputed before the Supreme Court.

2. Nature of the Properties (Ancestral or Self-Acquired):
The plaintiff claimed that the properties listed in Schedules A, B, and C were either ancestral or acquired with the aid of joint family funds. The defendants argued that only the Watan lands were ancestral and that the other properties were self-acquired by Siddopant and Devji. The courts held that:
- The Watan lands were ancestral.
- The properties purchased by Siddopant and the houses built by him and Devji were self-acquisitions.
- The plaintiff failed to prove that the acquisitions were made with joint family funds.

3. Admissibility of Certain Documents as Evidence:
The plaintiff argued that certain judgments from previous suits for maintenance were wrongly rejected as evidence. The High Court held that these judgments were not admissible under sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that the documents were produced late and were not relevant under the applicable sections.

4. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Specific Plots and Properties:
- The High Court held that the sites on which houses were constructed were self-acquired due to lack of evidence showing they were part of joint family properties.
- The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that properties possessed by a family from time immemorial could be presumed ancestral unless proven otherwise.
- The Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff's claim to plots S. Nos. 634, 635, 639, 640, 641, 642, 644, and 645 as ancestral properties and awarded him half the value of these plots as on the date of the suit.

5. Plaintiff's Claim to Properties Inherited from a Collateral:
The plaintiff claimed that by adoption, he became the preferential heir to Swamirao's properties, which had devolved on Devji. The High Court, following a Full Bench decision, held that the plaintiff could not divest Devji of these properties. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the doctrine of relation back does not apply to properties inherited from a collateral. The decision in Anant Bhikappa Patil (Minor) v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil was reconsidered, and it was held that an adopted son cannot claim properties inherited from a collateral.

6. Allegation of Blending of Properties with Joint Family Properties:
The plaintiff alleged that the properties in Schedule C were blended with joint family properties. Both the trial court and the High Court found against the plaintiff on this issue. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the burden of proving blending was on the plaintiff, and he failed to establish it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court modified the decree of the lower court by granting the plaintiff a decree for half the value of the plots S. Nos. 634, 635, 639, 640, 641, 642, 644, and 645 as on the date of the suit. The decree of the lower court was otherwise confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs in the appeal.

---