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