Ravindra Sampatrao Metkari vs Raghuraj Rajaram Metkari — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ravindra Sampatrao Metkari vs Raghuraj Rajaram Metkari — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal No. 120 of 2025 admitted on the five substantial questions of law framed; appellant directed to serve respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service; record and proceedings called for; printing dispensed with; private paper-book to be filed within one year. In Interim Application No. 1649 of 2025, rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) made returnable on 20th June 2025, with ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) to operate during pendency of the application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court on the validity of the registered adoption deed, based on the eligibility of Sampatrao to be taken in adoption in view of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, would be sustainable in the absence of any specific pleadings and supporting evidence to challenge the adoption of Sampatrao on the ground of his eligibility to be taken in adoption. +4 more

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal is admitted on the five substantial questions of law framed, relating to the validity of the registered adoption deed of Sampatrao, the first Appellate Court's appreciation of Sections 16 and 10 of the Adoption Act, the absence of pleadings challenging the adoptive son's eligibility, the alleged inherent defect in the adoption deed, and the dismissal of the partition claim without findings on partition by metes and bounds between Nivrutti and Rajaram.

Key takeaways

In Interim Application No. 1649 of 2025, rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is made returnable on 20th June 2025.ratio¶37
During the pendency of the interim application, ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (c).ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), by order dated 14th February 2025, admitted Second Appeal No. 120 of 2025 (Ravindra Sampatrao Metkari v. Raghuraj Rajaram Metkari and ors) on five substantial questions of law arising from the first Appellate Court's findings on the validity of a registered adoption deed of Sampatrao: (i) whether those findings on Sampatrao's eligibility to be taken in adoption under Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are sustainable absent specific pleadings and supporting evidence on that ground; (ii) whether the findings amount to incorrect appreciation of Sections 16 and 10 of the Adoption Act; (iii) whether the findings on the validity of the adoption deed are contrary to Section 16 of the Adoption Act; (iv) whether the finding of inherent defect in the adoption deed travels beyond the grounds pleaded to challenge the adoption; and (v) whether the plaintiff's prayer for partition and separate possession could have been dismissed without findings on partition by metes and bounds between Nivrutti and Rajaram. The appellant was directed to serve the respondents by private notice with affidavit of service; record and proceedings were called for; printing was dispensed with; and a private paper-book was to be filed within one year. In Interim Application No. 1649 of 2025, rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was made returnable on 20th June 2025, and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was granted during pendency.

29.120.25 sa.docx

Iresh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1649 OF 2025 IN

SECOND APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2025

Ravindra Sampatrao Metkari

.....Appellant

Vs.

Raghuraj Rajaram Metkari and ors

.....Respondents

Mr. Sandesh Patil a/w Mr. Chintan Shah and Ms. Anusha Amin i/b Mr. Prithviraj Gole Advocate for the Appellant

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE : 14^th FEBRUARY 2025

IRESH MASHAL

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.02.20 13:54:06 +0530

ORDER:

1. Heard learned counsels for the appellant. The second appeal is

admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(I) Whether the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court on the

validity of the registered adoption deed, by recording findings on the eligibility of Sampatrao to be taken in adoption, in view of Section 10 of

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘Adoption Act’)

1/3

29.120.25 sa.docx

would be sustainable, in the absence of any specific pleadings and supporting evidence to challenge the adoption of Sampatrao on the ground of his eligibility to be taken in adoption?

(II) Whether the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court would amount to incorrect appreciation of Section 16 and Section 10 of Adoption Act?

(III) Whether the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court on the validity of adoption deed is contrary to the provision of Section 16 of the Adoption Act?

(IV) Whether the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court on the ground that there was inherent defect in the adoption deed would amount to recording a finding beyond the grounds pleaded to challenge the adoption of Sampatrao?

(V) Whether in the absence of any findings on partition by metes and bounds between Nivrutti and Rajaram, the prayer for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff could have been dismissed?

In addition to Court notice, learned advocate for the appellant shall serve the respondents by private notice and file affidavit of

2/3

29.120.25 sa.docx

service.

Call for record and proceedings. Printing is dispensed with.

Learned advocate for the appellant shall file private paper-book within a period of one year.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1649 OF 2025:

Rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is made returnable on 20^th June 2025.

In addition to Court notice, learned advocate for the applicant shall serve the respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date.

During the pendency of the application, there will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

3/3