Bombay High Court

SHRI.MURLIDHAR DAJI MANE AND OTHERSversusJANABAI SONABA JADHAV AND OTHERS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is dismissed as the appellant is not the legitimate son of Daji Mane and no substantial question arises.

Summary

The second appeal was filed by the original defendants challenging the trial and appellate courts' findings that the appellant was not a legitimate son of Daji Mane and therefore had no right to the partitioned property. The genealogy showed Daji Mane and Savitribai had only daughters, and the appellant claimed to be their son, but evidence indicated he was the illegitimate child of Kisan Gobalkar and Kalabai Wagh, with no adoption deed. The plaintiff sought a DNA test to prove the appellant's non‑paternity, which the appellant refused, leading the courts to draw an adverse inference. Both lower courts held that the appellant was not a son of Daji Mane, and the appellate court found no substantial question for review. Consequently, the second appeal and related interim applications were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is the legitimate son of Daji Mane for purposes of inheritance and partition.
Whether refusal to undergo a DNA test permits an adverse inference of non‑paternity.
Whether any substantial question of law or fact remains for the appellate court to consider.

Subjects

legitimacy
inheritance
partition suit
DNA test
adverse inference
civil appeal

Judgment

                                                              26-SA-528-18.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        SECOND APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2018
                                     WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1221 OF 2018

    Murlidhar Daji Mane and Ors.                       … Applicants
          V/s.
    Janabai Sonaba Jadhav and Ors.                   … Respondents
                                 ___________
    Adv. Hrishikesh Shinde, for the appellants.
    Adv. Vishwanath T. a/w Adv. Shivaji Kokare a/w Mahesh Bhosale a/w
    Adv. Sampada Patil, for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5.
                                 ___________

                                      CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
                                      DATE : 20 AUGUST 2026

    P. C. :


    1.        This Second Appeal has been filed by original defendant nos. 8

    to 12, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court

    and the Appellate Court.


    2.        The genealogy of the family has been stated in the convenience

    compilation at page no.3. In the said genealogy, the name of the

    present appellant is not mentioned. It is the case of appellant no.1

    that he is the son of Daji Mane and Savitribai (defendant no.4). As

    per the family genealogy, Daji Mane and Savitribai had five daughters,

    all of whom were married. The third daughter, (Janabai) filed a suit



Rushi                                   1 of 3
                                                             26-SA-528-18.doc


    for declaration and partition. The said suit was decreed and the

    present appellant no. 1 did not get any right in the properties of Daji

    Mane. He therefore, filed an appeal before the District Court. Even the

    said appeal was dismissed. In the said appeal, the plaintiff, defendant

    no. 1, 2 & 3 got 1/5th share each and defendant nos. 5 to 7 together

    got 1/5th share.


    3.    Mrs. Savitribai died on 3 May 2023 while this suit was pending

    before the Trial Court. It was the case of the plaintiffs and defendant

    nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 that the present appellant no. 1 was not the son

    of the deceased Daji Mane, but an illegitimate child of one Mr. Kisan

    Gobalkar and Kalabai Wagh. The said Kalabai Wagh, who is the

    biological mother of the present appellant no. 1, had an illicit

    relationship with Daji Mane. Hence, there are documents which show

    Daji Mane as the father of appellant no.1. However, appellant no. 1

    was not born to Daji Mane or Savitribai. He remained and stayed

    with Daji Mane and Savitribai but there was no adoption deed.


    4.    Both the Courts have considered the documents on record and

    have held that the present appellant no.1 is not a son born to Daji

    Mane or Savitribai, though Savitribai and defendant no.3 Anjnabai

    supported the appellant no.1. An important fact needs to be

    considered here that the plaintiff in order to prove that appellant no.1


Rushi                                 2 of 3
                                                             26-SA-528-18.doc


    is not the son of Daji Mane, preferred an application for appellant

    no.1 to undergo a DNA test. However, the appellant no.1 herein

    refused to undergo such test. Hence, an adverse inference can be

    drawn.


    5.    In view the same, there is no substantial question which arises

    in the present second appeal.


    6.    Hence, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.


    7.    Hence, the Interim Applications / Civil Applications, if any, also

    stands dismissed.


    8.    At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

    requested that the ad-interim relief granted by this Court should be

    extended by a further period of four weeks, as the appellant would

    like to challenge the judgment passed today.


    9.    Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, learned counsel appearing for the

    respondent, has opposed the request made by the Advocate for the

    appellant.


    10.   For a further period of six weeks, the ad-interim relief granted

    earlier to continue till the next of hearing.

                                                    [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]


Rushi                                   3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…