Sri Sannayellappa Mudiyappa ... vs Ramappa Hanumappa Koppad on 19 November, 2011

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

Sri Sannayellappa Mudiyappa ... vs Ramappa Hanumappa Koppad on 19 November, 2011

Bench: B.S.Patil

E§¥%?4§f28§E

5%; 'mg EEGE CGEERE' GE' §§AR:KEATA}i%, {ZEIRCEUET BE3E*€€?i~§':§'€
Qamxvgn '' .  

D§ﬂ'§I,D @213 THE 19%; DAY 3? NQVEMBEE<:--  ~

BEFORE

THE HQN'BLE MR, JUSTIEQE :3';$,T§>é3::;*.'   '

ReF.a.No.?4@;f2oo ':.V_ " 

BETWEEN: V' A,.   _ >  ' .... 

E. Sr: Sanzzajgzasiiappa §\€m'di§f'é;§'§;3..7' 
Yalﬁapuradavar  Barsakagz '
Since éeztsasszgﬁhy higé LR, 

{3} Sri "I}:ii11i';3_ai*--ed:giy§   '  -- 
S/0 Sa;nr1§a§;»e11apj3aVBémakajr 
@J.Y$1la"p11:a{i2*gzar;'--..  «  
gigs: Ex/Iéi.}:%:V, R,;é'«.e3 §;1§Vagar;3danaka:ii§
TQ: Ra;f1<:b!e11%::;:f.   '

2. R5i£'I1&CEui'£!.§1§ii§:fS:§:;§3..aL;%X?§%%é§§8~

':'a}§a,pu§aéia§»%3;3*  Bé;33EiE:aiﬂ
Age: 33%} §7€a1"S,"' A A.
 iﬁcé: giggrié,-3;;1iu§&,VV' """ "
 ' '§;;'"<s §&§ag6':2éa13gE§ai:i§
 i =;?v§3;;1aVE:;€"Q;_::':;»r.

   Eiaﬁdayéiiayedéé

  %   _ _

':'éiEa§;:;r3;<§':.:v&r @ §§E'}a:§§.3.§",
 Ag€:" £25:.yea:s%
3 AA Qgc: ﬁggﬁczgiiureg
 ,§,f Eisvagenﬁarzaiiaiii,
 ._ 'Esq: '§&:1&~%3€::;:a_2.:r.

~ " }§z,:§f:a§pa léyiazééjggpga
Y'€EEa§3:::§a§3.va:' @ Bagieaéiar,
Sfizzaa ﬁ€€Z€3S¥3§ by 32,222: 133%



EPA ?'£3L€};'2éf§§ E

{3} Smt Huchavxfaa
13.9,! 0 iaée Puiiagga Yeiiapuraﬁavar,
Age: 58 jgegrs.

Eb} Sri Nemappa,
S/0 late Puitappa Y'ei1apurada}5§.§§
Age: élﬁ years.»  

Bot}: residents of DexragQunde;r:;1i§e:_tﬁ  
Vﬂiage, Itagi Peat, Ranebergnur '£'a_lu}~:,_  A '
Havel': District. '  " 

{C3 Smt. Ha:1an1aWa?~ _  =    »»»» 
W/G Hanumaradd§;%3~Iag--3ré,;- VV "  "
age: :38 Zwzars, ' V _T  
R/0 Kuppelur Viliageg'  '
Hav-sri DisiriC.t. " ' "

{4} Sri sg11a;'d¢»%ép;:§a';  __   % 1. _ I 
S/0 PL;tta;ppa Yé:'1iap'u1_~2.d."avar,V;

{Er}  -~ '

S X Eats Pzggiéggijpé "'1~'§I1a:;§:2raﬁaVaz3
Age:V"3{f§yg>ars? ' 

if} Sf? Basaﬁaggfaﬁiidig ' V
'- ..._ V 'S ,5 8., 353:; igtapga 'iéﬁapziraaiairaiz

' 2 _, :'a.ge»:_;32 yaazs.

  V.{é§f}"':§[é*-{£1  f'€fS§ﬁ6§}§Z:§ gf
_ V§&vagé:~{_;:2danaka'{§§ Vﬁiags,
 Eiaggi 2233:, Razzebenaur v1?i£ag6$
§§3a%%::i':' Qésirici.

 " _*g%::::5 ?:;s%:§a,

"W"/% Kaifappa Yerashigizi
ﬁgs: 3:3 years?
RX :3 'fﬁrshasaiii viélagg,
Eéarihar 'E'ah;ka.,
Qazfanagsfe Sisézissé. MA?§§§,g%*§"$



§§Qpe:§:g§$;' }.

RFA E749 /2&0 3.

{By Sri Tarakaram, Sr. Caunsei fer
Sri M.G.Naganuri, Adv. far
Sri K.L.PatiI, éidm}

AND:

1. Sr: Ramappa Hanumappa Kopp§¢'d;"'  . 
A/f Basavareddi Yallapur, V'  1 '
rig) Magodi, Tq: Ranebennur,

Dist: Haveri. *

29 Smta L8.KShIT[18;VV8..;  . _ . a i
Wfo Lakshmappa Ys}.1.apurad--.::vi:1;r.b "_ '  .... 
@ Banakan "  ' _   V 

Since decreased by  T  "   
Appellant No.2 W110 isHgL_I:"e;1dy_ L V'  
on record. "  " *  V ' ;.1::EsP0NDENTs

{By Sri I<'.V.1"ati._l,-A¢i"v'.i:AQj:'fJg::_:  I  

This"VRegu§»a;f Firé~:}';VVApp€;2ii is 'f1fiéd under Section 96 ef CPC
against the judgm<:*::t.._a{1:d 'dsﬁitrgre {iateé 18.08.2091 passed in
G.S.N<3.Ei/'£3996 9:1 €236'.fiIc._éi:'f_iE;~1€ Civii Judge {Sr.§n.} S: Fri'
JMFQ Razzebéigrxur,"ﬁ3;é:'r:1:;$:E:g the: suit far' daclaraiiazi and fa"
partitian arm' ""3e§;:rea:.&  ;_:<3V5s;%;§€ssien sf 3/4"': ghare Er: gmifi

_  « fffiis .;%§p5é$a§._ha'i;ing beer: iﬁsaré arzﬁ ressrvezi far judgmeai
GE} §}§ 5C§*:422§ §§ _"€:3:§--:;:1g 53:" granaazncsmezit, ﬁziég £33; £135 Qatar:
dei§*{€:«'.$«-':{i §E"§f?"'L§7:7}V§:¥.'€;*1%?§?'§:'i',_£'_>f: -

SUDGMENT

2.  Vajgigéai is fiisﬁ '$3' ﬁe giaimiiffs Er; &S,?~?0.3E,!1§§§

by :56 judgnism aﬁé ﬁesyee éaiizeé E§5%8,2{)§§; §a$$=ea'

  Civi Jzzdgs {$::*§nj, Rﬁﬁﬁbﬁﬁﬁﬁf.

 "W

§



R??2% 27é§f};"2§f} 1

2. ihe suit was filed seeking éeelaratioa of tide e"f~--. €.he

plaintiffs based ea ihe WEE executed an €32.04. i§83  3

The piairitiffs aise sought for a deelaratian that   

was not the adapted sen of deceased Ya'l1aV'\;ra.&_ 

3; Facts in brief involved in the ;>;.'eseiiei.v_ease a:a:e"V'a§;  
Suit properties eemprise  faeaeuring 8
acres 39 guntas and Sy;  _ aeree  guntas,
bath situated at   Ranebennur
Taﬁuk. As per   the piaintiffsa
appeﬁants, one  propositus, his son
was one   had twe some by name
Maﬁiyappa *a%1€§ v~"Ti'1e first scan E\!Eu&i§:appa had

fees' serzagriag §ec:§ aaj;e§Ea:*'edéj};, Saanayeﬁareﬁﬁgi, Puitappa and

LaE<,e§a:1a1§§;a,.  aeeeiiéji sea Haaaraaredaéy Eiasﬁ 'ease eerie by

aaiaze aaaaIv.3a.<:aa§;v 's/ma Eiuehaega. We aye aew eeaeemeé irate

_  q,,v/gfae §1'€>§er':i;e.a'eéjéﬁsﬁaaavaeeédfga Tee said Baaavazedciy éieé

 _ .§ea?§§ag eehéaﬁ his Wiie Yaﬁavea. FEEES}? baa'? as iseaeaé Yaiawa
 .;a§'ae é§ie::§. ﬂeeing @334' Breihee ef Baaaxzafedéfg  aame
 ._§i'é:e%§a§pa, eieaeeeaeed Baeavareddgz. E§ae§:appa"s wife

  Eiazaaiavva Ezaﬁ aiea Ea tee gear E%'}'§ ésaaeieaaé

2%
1g
%

§§&%@I3 m



xi

EPA "?%Gf2€}GE

4, Fiainiiff N91 is Ehﬁ San af Mudiyappa, ihe first brsujch,

?1ai1':-fgiff [email protected]{a} --» Thimmaredﬁy is 'zhe sax: ef p§a:§;_::--§f'
Piaintiff No.2 - Ramachandrappa is 816 SSH of Laksh;fna.pJ;E§é;',"  

fourth 39:: 6:" Mad'; appa. Phintiff No.3'? MI.:ki:nd_ar§3'cE1:IyVis.Fighaég

son 0f Dsdaiayeﬁareﬁdy, Plaintiff 1;  .vAf1':~4ev 

Mudiyappaf It is thus clear t}"1a,_f"'pVlainfViff$ 'a.;jé'-.:3li. éia1Ii::ing "

unﬁer Mudiyappa, i:h€ ﬁrst, th'eﬁ Sui: pgaperties
far which ihei' defendani;  the deed of
adoption are thuofgé    ;' 3 ec:c3nd branch
Hanumareddygi.}a%e:\§;#jg1§ri~t%§_Aﬂ%53:his s§:fg«;:')'1VV}_#?;;§§%.Va1'eddy and after

his death s:..1«::g:eéd(§é itgby 1<1jis._W:f€:':.'a11&'»;'irva.

E33 ﬁgcarding :3 <éE;é';§'i9§::i:f§':3, upan {he death cf Ya iavva and

Kamaiavéra Wi"€§*G;_i: V};éav§;*1g'«"'Ej€h:n& any heira thé piaintiffg

 §::é';':g '-55$ :,£7%%:z:.}fae:*3 Gi"""'§i€ ariginaﬁ, famﬁy' cf €216 §ra§§$§i::,:s

?vE';:_é.2:s.Er;_3i§;:;§)7ai;;,_  "évﬁigsms 'éhé G'i¥1":€i"S csf ﬁlﬁ Sui: §£'G§€i'ii€§ 3?

   '§3}ia;é*.«%%;2z:1é §*ié§_f:§i$zEaamr§~ 3.3 *{h€3; {giaizziiffsi was 133% erﬁy hairs'
 '£%1<§'§:;*::F':;%;:€:v' 083% eé {Em piaiméffs {haé '§§'1€}? aafaré :'€s§&§%i:g in
  §i'§é%%é';;g:c5:9:§%a::3%<:22%;i§ viéiaga 943$ ﬁezjeageé Kamaéavzza arzﬁ "€'a§amz2z
 ..._%;§:.§:r'eV';st3»$j,r';Zz":g aigiag Wiih fihem. 'Ehe jgiéaiﬁiiffg wars baking 2:51:61'

  égiéz sf éiéiém ané was alga zf:;,:§ii¥a,'§3;:i:g iheir prepsriieg 9:: ihaér

Esshgif. ii is 3389 $2162" f:;:*%;E:$:* €§§;€ Ehaii §€C€a:S€§; ':%é§a2m:a's

 



RFA ?4(},f2GGE

parants' hggss was in Mag-::>éu viﬁage ané she had 'iwa brciiigers

by name Basappa and Eianumagpa anﬁ defendan: 

son ef Hanurnappa.

6. Awarding {G the plaintiffs? aftef=,A_hea.-rifgg uihé: -1f'1_V€'J§;S"VGf'Vﬂ7?.:f3A'

deaih of her €}Ci€F bmther Basia-p.pa, Viafhé  5:: 

18.34.1979 at Magodu viﬁage, Ya11%§;€k'2r§ a._i§>ng;'§=s:ﬁVl:f1 ﬁlaiggtiffs and
some of the famiiy of  Magodu
village. After the fgneral    returned;
However, Ya}13y¥"5f;?§    months with
Hanumappa,   By misusing his
position     3 father sf defendant
Na] {:reai%:'E  is ghew 313;: déceaged

'fa§13;vvaV.g:né {i"'a:5_ §affEé'€rA"v§§ '%esp0::deni 356,} aéang Wéih {E16

'vzizaiiizﬁﬁfsff §E %3f€1'ZE§&1{};{ "E'§l§';"1"é§fe€:§d aéggéieiz af réspandeaé Na, L

§":*:;u:§h_ %;'y;>"s«z;é§i:4"2;.{§épf;:::;z:: couéé have E365: affeeisé as ﬁéféfitﬁaﬁi

 v,E'§$.1 was :n0é°€ .V_:%iaa E5 },f€f8£"S 51' age 8:: $28 time cf the: 333:3

 ',.,a<ist3§§iG:L "';i"'f::i§ was faﬂswed by a '$5331 gs: axes:/yieﬁ er:

 ..j§§i{§'§1'§?'§ fmzgz {§€C€:*3S€5i  Y3§§E§;'Jif&  '£16 faﬁger sf dﬁfsrzéazzi

 ..._:\3{3.§ iusing his izzfizzensa 'figs sazié WEE was Eafzer an {:a:':C§§§ec:i

. 'éf§; Yaiiazrvg er: 2§§S§f£§8f}§ 'zvhaeérz ¥'ai%awrg has aéae stated

'aha? she fiéaﬁ 233:}? ':;::5§<:€z: §«3§%r;éa§:*: f\§«:::l Er: aésgéésn.

 

 



REA '?z'éG;'2GC? 31

7?, The piaintiffs furiher asseriﬁd that éscéagsd §"2IiE::;Vva

béqgwgfhed the Sui: s<:h&§:1ie pm§€r'[i€$ in fazygiﬁf
piainiiffs by vcziuniarily executing 3. W11} an  
was duiy registered an 'aha same    V
assert€& that hath as natural V  

Kamalavva and else as jper the régiﬁféred WVi}1_   1983 'V

executed by deceased Ya}!-a}rVa, &£E1'c£.r§'VL_:bé§dLA'bee1i'inpzissession
and snjoydtnent Sf the 3:13:  ewners, E: is
also allegeé by thge '   being the wife
of plaintiff No; 1l*JQf$."b§§j'ﬁ  mother of plaintiff
N052 and  ;i§2:§v.ﬁ:;Vs:"::e£/akseci Kamalavva, did not

have rightvm/er the §;rf(:pé;':ié€T_A£t;--- qugestien,

8. '§'he}g hgifé' a§§se.V%:aﬁ'é;eéé7C§e€§ ihaéi Eiamaésszva andi Yaiiamia

 siayaév-...a$*§§Z;-}.A iizsg plaifiéiéis in {E16215 hazzse, §u'§ '£13 nameg cf

é:{€.:ffe§:1T_3;':ré 'E%E_C§$;V?§'  were zazrangifz azatergaé in "$36 rscarda a3

 "  haézé  Aftsr iE:€ £533': §§ Yaiéavaraé §18..'§§{}5iiffS maﬁa
 .;£'i§§r::ap*{§ ?:'jf;§?3€V?;§'}€ir 3:32:23 aaiareéi 1:3. 'ihs rsverms mgerés based
  "$16 'E£'ahsﬁ§&§; ardersﬁ far €::"£6:37iE'§g' {ha ::a§:1§S sf
 ..__{:§;éf€f2§d3m§ Neg} gieng with dsfszzdaﬁi N<)s.f§: £5 3 }a£§3;E§r. fhaugﬁz

'€326 §1a§::a'if§$ grsferéreé; 3;: 8..§§€3§ bafeys '£323 g%§$§s*:§,:f:

{'Z<:m3r:::s5:?:sa@:, an §'?'.82::§Q{3, 331$ Assisiami Camzrgigsisaar

 /

$



EPA '?éi€3,z"2{}Q3s

passeé an erdsi" against {he piaintiffs. 31: is the Qrder §a$.:§;~;--zi by

the Assistant Qonzmissioner, which accerding :0 ihgplauiigtiifégu

ggrmxided the: cause cf action to appmach the Cixrﬁ €";'o1ii*: "::=jgf V' 

filing the suit,

9, Defendant Na} fileﬁ writteﬁ S__iEl3;GﬁiG_ﬂf denyifig: fihsg rights  F

asserted by ihe piaintiffs in the S{g1;:t'v':QEblf'C}}§\€ZI"[V1;L.(';':3;'_VV: ﬁfe (Z Qﬂi€nd€d
that the suit was barred    ;.32g:£1'é«.was n'z;;:VAivnstitu:ed
within EhI'€€ years. _ He  'Quit properties
beicmged '£0     and after
thé: death 0f  Eecarnet the absolute
ewner by  1;3f..."$f'é1iavxra§ Theugh defendana:
Na: Eias-3 d:€r3%e:§VtE:2eV é;:§;_§f;<%§é;E<::;§y'«iﬁarnisixad in sr:heduE€~2 :0 the

glainn he ha;s "':::s:?_::mi2';ft:c:%d *:Ei:{i£ Mudéyappa and Hanumarvsddy

x%;'€2".',€ §':€:':i§%é,.G~.S{3*§}.§ if %{}§é3i7:E'3ppa grad tiara "$58.8 §a§"éi?:§$:: %€if:W€en

EiiI'a§j'&i§*a5_§;>5V"vaﬁ1:§'E:§a§:.L2V:ma;:'eéd}?, wharsupen they V~.?€§"€ arzjsyziag

 .»:}:€i2" i*;:Spes"%f§3$'€ pi'epe§:ieg ségaraiééy afsﬁ gas 313: grepsﬁies

 "' _.§}t11"i8.§§i':€{§"%;§ ITih€ bgaach 9;? Haﬁumareﬁafy 91:333.? aﬁﬁ 2/@321 hia

 .§£:a}:E:.V§  $3123 Bagavareﬁﬁgs' agzé Bi:3c?a,a;§§a 'WSFE sgjayiag f§'}€

  as mﬁmbsis ef {E13 jgini famiéye ﬂier 4:333 ﬁeath af

  i§B{asaé:'3:€d§y, Eéaciéappa 333$ Eiamaiavva E»'£%",f'a:3 Eészsézagapa 3?: @935

V' 'fgééavva 'Eggs Easavarééciy :>v§:@ siarésd aaiiizraiing $316 322:?

a

 

 



RFA E'45;'280E

iands and on 23.G5.};§'?9, in the preseace af skiers 325$ in

F

accaréianrse with 321$ reiigious rituals arid as p61' C:1f1S?}'i}§fi*}.$~--.{3"g

Raddy Casts; Yaiiavva. took defendant N03 in  

06.06. £979, the adoptien deed was reg;iSi'e123d7  

{hrs date cf aciepﬁozrzg defendant Na} bZ'i;aTs:'--z_:Téf1tirii1é{1--.:g/.

adgptsd son of deceaséd Yallavvei has .iIisCF;a:fg::ciu"-'gﬁé' '(itities 'V

as such and apart': her death, he }12:s--..{j:x':uii§:'1u6dt%;{;.19s:_;}1 actuai

possﬁssiorz and enjoynlent sf €136 S:';:i?';~ §;rQpe:_r°i:iues,

10. Defendant   before the
revenue   in his favour by the
Assisiant    the assertions of the
glainiiffs  stayed with ihe plaintiffs

azieti 55316;}? _§'a::1§1§f":/gzsi.i§1afv:ﬁé:gziaéniiffs cuitivaied {he ierzds an

'Vihair §::¥3§'aEi.f;, §}--*§:§m:=:r 8:3'§V(9L"'§'£§'.;'L"VfP';Gf{'}S maﬁa is "aha piainé; was denésd.

"§'E:§§é' ﬁiéigééd {he aiiegeé 1?:/'iii siaéed ta has?-*5 E633

  €X€€U{'£§§  by_YaE§;:.é9¥a 331$ have giatszéi aha: {he $;;E,d Eifii}; was get

 "".,.,:_:é2::a%i€§ xézhfsfz Vaiéavara was bﬁdé fidéﬁﬂ 3:23; had 195%, he? aﬁiéziiy

 «_§C3'.'§i:Eg§€i"'${&;f1§ ha? 3&3 33$ i"ifi€§$.

  Bsfsﬂéaat N@,2{a;E igxrhs saws en mcsfé afier $16 dsaﬁz af

Kﬁafagséazzé N02} 351$ ﬁe?-enﬁarzi §'%E&:'§ Ezazre fﬁsd gain: %m'i:i:€:E

F:3§l&§€1E1'2€E"i'{ gugpariiﬁg 335:3 caes G5 81$ géaizzféiffst

E '2

    



REE ?éG,52€)$?:
2%

E2. Q12 {he basis cf Ehe pisadings, the Triai Cour: fra::?§ :§_" éifg_€

feiiewiﬁg issues:

{1} whether ihe plaintiffs preve "that they "  

heirs 0:" deceased Yaﬂavva and K£;maiava:.a'?_ -1'

(ii) whetheer the plaintiffs }J1'Q:v'€ t§ia§"'deCe:gs;:<§ . '4:'é1}.§e'{;vx;.é1;
had executed a Will in fétvﬁur 0f ':he'-g.5.iaif:EtiffS an

02.04% M383?

(1111) Whether defendant'N€:'.'V1 ?fie_'__is the adapted

3011 cf deceased' Basapvarédcfﬁy?'  -- . K

{iv} \xrhe€'t<1'ie§_:i"*-. V§A'§3--rQ§E_.eV"v.:bt13.:;'Lt the adoption of
t:'1€f€Ij(Z1€iI1i;'VE§'\§:{_)'.,'"i' n0:.§,L';11_i:i "as..hV¢.€>vas major an the date of
adaﬁytiozz?  V '

{V} 1>szh3:ii"€§_;€<:;:iv€€V:§:' {;;*{i"<::fi?_;~

zgﬁiﬁigigggs 1sgé.:;s« é.a.é.:%'C§ 33$ :: S 299?.

'  é?:»h$i;1<:§:* ﬁéafénzéaﬁt N93 proafag ihai éhsre is a cugiarn in

" ~.  37:9 éaks adgptiazz G? 3, bay mars Sign 3.5

§%:?:.ars_'?' '

 * A§id§€i?§nai issue éiaieé §§f38.1§9%.

":35

sxagzzmsd as PW»;

 ii;":':'5:h$r {E16 §§g.§:1'§§i% are a:t%::'":1a:iv€%§;' agziéﬁeﬁ fa}: 3,f'='i':f3%

 332335 in 31$ Sui: §:'a§€:*iies'?

in Supgartg sf iheér C3.:*E»€.; pigéniiff E'%Q.2 g£::e'{ hizgsséf

"E2253 Qihﬁf '%}J§f§§"£$S8€S 55; game Bag:-ziah

 



RFA 7&§~Gf2QO1
E E

Anugeéi Mai': agar}: Reeargagouda Charamaiahgeuda Paf::E--.. are

examined 3.5 PWSQ 3: ii Befendant Nee: -~ 

Hanumappa Keppad hae examined himself as   V'

examined three Wﬁinesses i.€g,'  "--Hari;1mag5pé1 V VS/67..

Hanumanthappa Koppad, Char:£f;a¥::}e§eé{ppe;'*   .

Haadimani and Shankarappa GﬁzﬁjbasapevaI\/1aI}epui:<.;éis»DWs~ "

2, 3 <3: 4-, respectively: Plaintiffs §::Qduced'vva.nd'§marked
Exs.P~1 :0 F58, whereae"  got marked

EXs.D~1 ts D~5.

E4' The Triai Ce--i:;_i r§   'CW0 attesting witnesses
examined   sfeeiied that deceased Yallavva
put her ei§i:aiLz,re  the eentente ef éhe W212 and

the': {E16}? _Vini2,:;;é';_ ;éig::'i1e'd A§he""i¥§2iE iii 'ahe preeeeee ef deeeaseé

 '§aE.1a:rva.{' 13%, is «f'%%i'é:he:'A §'éﬁ:Zfiiec§ ea}: ﬂea: as §er Seeéioe 63 e? She

2:i;§:ss;;2_e';;:¢ei:égs."e;:; 315:3 the {eeieter eeaié eége es affix his mark

  er: ::he,__:?J::§ _e;:f ehali be sigeeﬁ $33; eenee €3{h€§ pezzeen is his

VTT"'~,..4§:ceee§ee  by his ééeeeeiien SQ ffeai; it Shel}; agpear ihat éihe

 «._e:§éa:.:;:::J_§*e er {he eéaeé: ef éiiee ieeiaiee er er? {ﬁe eersee eigaizzg fee

'  'Wee imiefgdeﬁ :9 give effee: ta me eaeiéiéng as a Vsfiﬁ and she?

 ﬁiie WE ET eizaii be aéieeieé E3}; ewe es meee xaeiineeees eeeéz e

C
;

where has eeee ﬁze ieeziejzer eige er affix his mark :0 See 1%??? 9:'

£3?
5%.): e
5* am"

'=3
§



REA ?%@§2Q€!E
12

has received {rem {he §€S§8.iQE' a persenai aeknewiedgmenj; of

his eigneﬁéure 9:' mark and each ef ihe witnesses ehaﬂ 

will in the presence ef ihe teetator. The 1 "

eeneluded by analyzing the evidence Q-1° "€r1e.attesti;ifg"*e;iit1ieeees~.,
PWs~2 & 3 {hat they have never stateii  ﬂieir 'eyidevr;ee'

they had eeen deceased Yallavva..eig1j1iI1g 'ch_ea1<jd'*'i;n":he1* " V

presence they had signed the WmeaeVVV:e;:i1;esiers..' 'I'11eAATr:':a1 Court
has else eeme tie the e0I:e1L{sie13-   well established
principles? the prvQ§e1u:'1de1:' ef   iieeeuired to lead
satisfaetofy evj.:%eii:ee  deceased Yaliavva
and her s§:1.3en.d_A'é:r;fe:   and the faetum of
her havingpxeet' 'i:::- the document Voluntarily, but

:30 evidence §i':fE4f§?w'ﬁ; iegeefﬁ»-1§fe;e'p§aeed by ihe elainiiffe. Thee,

_VeEaein§j._%je'§iaz2ee 0:'; jueigmeiﬁ ef {he eeex Seize: Eeperteé ﬁe

"-a:_ee  e§e:e§;e..e;e're ewe:-; es eemeeem eerr eizqee W am

39155  "E'%§e3 Seam hag reeeeﬁeé 3 fading er: ieeue

V §XEe.2 Eieiééeg 253;: {he yieinééffe faﬁeé ta peeve ehei ﬁeeeaeeé

é "'.'.'4':'e§§ie*e¥_e  exeeeieﬁ iéie WEE 2.3:: Q2,§S2i:i.§%8§ 'eequeeiézing {he

_ez;§i_pr:;§ereiee $5: ﬁeeér favem:

 _  ,?Ei As regazée zleeeze Eféeeeﬁ $2 5% eee"*£,e;i:/eezg ie pzeef ca? ;Ei§€§§'{iG§

ef ﬁefenéae: E'«Ee.E 'egg éeeeesed Eeeeeereeiﬁgz efzé eiee ehe

),.»(





RITA magzao E
l8

additlémal £53233 No.3 with régard id ﬁlm: preaf 0f the cdustcm in

Raddy csmmunily ':9 take in adoptien a be}: aged mare 
years, £116 Trial Court has considered the exrideI1ce~'df * V'
4 and has came :0 the Conclusion that V::éC<:alsar:z prdcedgzzdev a;::1d7..

ritual was perforrned including tha cI3rei:1c§ny éf__glx;in,g"

taking followed by registration of l;l*1_§€l:)<:uI1?ic::fltl'    

16. As regards the Canteﬁdflan   that at
the time of the adapfgion 0f was more than
l5 years czld      Sf the Hindu
Adoption and   he; was not capable of
being '   ha3 held that the
defezldani zl'laul%'-- 'Gills grevaillng in ills Raddy

C§1'n::1u:1i_2i}F $h@=é;:i:f_ig% ¥:l>.é:': a7;.pé'§sd:: aged mare {ham lé years was

 %€lng :fiE§€7:§:\§1§§i"A.3§{}§t§.é:E"§E§§. iherefdral §§"'§lE§§l1:i{}Z'l Qdriiialned

dégdeif  -'3{l'lf{:3?'§f"l. W38 l§3§pllC2f§:'>l€, Tlzusl lids "l':"ial Sam':

' ll "  E233  :l:v:;l.:lvd}§:f<é:;dani lwldll successfully gxegsed aihai he wag
  adegisd $5 decéaged ':'3lllg;wa and them: was as cugiam ll:
 llé'::g:::§:§m::§f;; lg iialge in adeptiag a bag? agad fl:€:E'€ ilzaa Eﬁ
  TEE Tylal Cdzzfi hag alga held ihaé ihe §Ila§l"3;lZ§f§$ failed 'Ea

  §';'G'if€ Ellsfa ills adczgiizsa wa$ 'mid laacauss défﬁrizdaizég {€83 was

majgdr 53: lfiﬁ lime 0? adaépliea add lzlg siaﬁgezzé wag 113%. taken,

_j¢'§
£25 %

5

       



'vs

REA ?:§§;'2{}G}
iii»

3?. £3 regarés the aciditionai £83236 framed an 31£?%:%'C1'S}j'<1_9E}V8

and issue No.1 which periained ta proef by ':h&  ~
they were the legal heirs of <:1ec€ased_Y.a11_avvagé;f1'{i«:E§afi*:ﬁ12:.3rva_V 
and hence they were entitled, 2213 an ajiiterzjaiiﬂre 3.~'¢1i;e1:";' f¢§ff ii'--.;{'.-?¥i'ii51__:

share in ths suii propariiea, tfié; Trial    ..3th3f£ 

ﬁuchappa died much earlier   Eiwhereas
Basavaraddy diéfd an   Wfo Huchappa
died an 29. 12 i976,A_where§:,33}' 198% The
Trial Court has    been held is be
the adopted   suit properties will
not go is  Kb} Wﬁi have effect eniy in
the absens»»§"*.Q%c 'gxéy  Eeﬁ: behiné '$5; $16 ciscaasezi

fﬁfflﬁlﬁ 

  §gg)a;*:;i.$§"'*%:E}:$ ﬂea GE 'mar sf Eimiéaiisn raéseé :2": {E16

wriiien =.§:f5;a;1:3€:1é'[§;--7{:é;{;; ﬁle Trig} ﬁiguzmi hag €}§§I}€§ ﬁﬁai: Siiiiﬁﬁ ihsre
was EEC! 4§&'33E,:{'$  fzéémséi in $3333: '£'!E'f§8;}"'§ and :30 €'J§§.f3E1{3€ was Eéﬁ is

>  3;;:?§f:€ii'?: £'f§:€ §§§i§}.?;'£ff$ came tie kﬁew 9? ma 8:§€}§}'7€iG1'1; the

éhééi 'as irgsfaesi as aha:<::é@:3:eé by {ha éafeizdaais arzé

' -3i};:'i$':'*€§5re ii was nail §"i$C€S$5ffy' is give 3:232' fiaééng $12. '$25 §E€a GE'

 'éar {zf iéméiggéian. '§'§':;s;g§ };ih€ '§':*§&§ Saar: $333 é;£3::::£a;§€é €328 Sui?

sﬁérectérsgf 'ﬁséh $3538 §a:*%;i€$ ii} ﬂea: iléaeéf awry: aéastg.

2%,;

. 3, w,;«~
E
§



395% 74e,x--2§a 3;

33.. ' Learned Sex:-aim' 392313333' Mr, 'E'araii:ara::r1' aéazzg' 

K3L'Pati1 3.315? Mr» M.Q;Naga:1u:'§3 '}:a:<;e: "  "

argumezits far 3:33; agpeiiants. 'l'h¢§€..,.j%3}3;%%_€ '-'ééﬁigéii

défendaxai: X9. 1 »---- Ramapga Whé was l$4}?%:?:§1"3  '



REE Z??--'§Sf2Q§§

the Apex Ceurt in "ihe ease ef BHIMASHYA 8: QTHERS VS 

{SMTJ ALIAS JANAWWA ~ (2006) 13 SCC 6272

20, it is hex? contended by the aeppeﬂarlts f.§i}'£ii;' 'ijzeiginaié 

adoption deed not having been produeed 2_111<;1:'01i3y; the 

copy ef the registered adoptien deed__.bei1i'g._§§i:*s(iuee'ei  ;

in the absence ef any i'0u:1dati'v<u5::.'.::ia;e1 f""(i.)'1',.VV:§3'1".¢:I)d1,v'Lf€3'Ci{)I1 ef
seeendary evidence? the   ':'leA1.eVAvambit ef
Section 65(3) of theV_indiar;.._E'$}fideeee:LA<§f;:  and the Trial
Court': was not  jueiiifieci in proof 0f
the adoption.   1'ef:§eVVj'11dgment of the Apex
Court :11'  (DEAD) BY LRS. vs
 Q 20.1:AI_;§;:ié'*ee:i}V~"188e. 1: is aiee eenéeeded by

':he appeiiante 'éiéhaiéi :::;ere '5:1e{i*fki11g of E:<:,B-1 cannot: grave the

 aE§eg;ed'?ve--«a§3§e;:iie'z:; in tE1e'"e':>eenee ef examinaiiee: 9%' any ei' ﬁze

eéiigeeeese.  Eihei: §'\2i?~3 is :30: a Wéinese is the said;

  éeeumeézi ', '%3~u': eéaieee {G Eiave eeiy ééeriﬁfied ihe pereen

~ Tf:..«f§¢ef,e::'*e e::;:_ _Sa;:'e~Regie'i::'e:: it is {umber eenieeéeﬁ E3}? the

 ._Ce{:eee§""A§er ihe apgeéieeis ﬁe: {he aﬂegeé aéegaiéee was me:

 ..__é{<$§e§? gees: ee éefeﬁéaei S933 @125 me: gee hie name ehengfeé ii:

 ..,__4€}se eeeeeé reeezﬁe 331$ ii/he}: hie meme eeﬁiénueé shexmieg hire

ee Sen ef E3355 geeiéive fejihee eézezz ii': the raﬁerz eeeé eeﬁ :fe*:er*e

 

W?

 



RFA '?4G;'2Q€!l

55:. He alga urgsg that respandent N9} Wha was nailiki: gf

Magod village Cantlnued to siay in Magod, xx?h€reaVs..:le:(:éa:s;e¥:lV.

Yallavva and her husband Basavareddy  V' 

Devagondanakatti village. That, Yallaviréllwas ¢_r:<3ve.;r lA{l€)ll;:_egilV:5:,:ft:e1.4".

by defendant Neal, an the other' hancl;.__sl::':;_zwasllléésiding 

the plaintiffs ané. it is they whol golfjiaer t.1:e.:;zts'f,4clVV.\l>§?l?1élf:Vv:';§liLr:slwas
unwell anﬁ that Defendamﬁ .l\xEe.l,Al':éis;. léxhd' regrenue in
respaci Sf the suitua' ll    was the
plaintiffs /Yellaxmralv/.Blélsaxra:j£;<l:l%§:%xri1§'gégyg  'land revenue as
per EXIL22 to 1  l A 

21. T3161; ap;§éllant§fz:r:her Contendsd {hai the
pregumptioéﬁ g5$':1_§la'7:,\l€l §§.:§r;l1€':=._::Se:'5:§a:: l§ cf the Hindu Adaptiszz

and §«la:::*:e21f:a:2§:% 5.6:; .v"1956,ﬂ3;ppli€d only :9 czriginal regisfcereé

*V.Vad'<3§it§é:1.a'é;?::§. am 220*: iéwaihe Cﬁftlfléé egpy,

22." = :§i;--.3;1s §§$:<.§_"L::i$:':€léf:d€é E3}? the ﬂazlnssaé fa? 'iie apgaﬁaﬁts £313.':

tifis sug'gs:sé:i§r:'i*mads by éiha Cszrznsﬁi fez ﬁsfamdaﬁé 359%} durizzg

 sf;::2u;:'se V53? a:m$$~€xamina.:§c>:: 9:" ?§i?$-2 £2 3 - éthé aééiésiiizg

1>$?:§i:f:&$Séé gtgiimg '$13,: Yallamza éié ﬁe: axﬁcuie 1:313 slséé

":a§éié1:*::a;:'ﬁy xsglziezzéz was empliaiically' clenieé by E?§§ w:i72':<%ss€$§

'E33651? sjégslegsé ihai e:;<€s::53;f::t::: :35 will b}; ilk? iegiaérégz; W33

aﬁmiiiséa Reléaizss is plaseé 923 £313 gzzégfmani {Ef 31$ Agrex €035?
 w,.;:>

xﬂé' :94  "W
E

 



REE: ?'4Q;"2€3GE
E8

in the {:3;S€ (if SAVITHRI 81: 0R$a VS KARTHYAYANI AIVIIPIA &: i3RS¢

aﬂ AIR 2008 SC 300, 'to contend that mare disinheﬁiagggé'  Zéégégi-« H

heirs and bequesat made in favgur ef grané chiidré:: was..iiet 2: V'

suspicious CifCUII1Sia1"1C€.

23. Caunsel for the appallantsiﬁ_;.1*théf.g:'ér1t€I1ai' '£1fg_z§.:_Hin_:§the 

absence sf any material produced \4b3r1 th¢ défeﬁéiaﬁtsvvfshomng
ihai plaintiffs had }{nmv1edg§%f."}:t»f tﬂe a511Véug€_;i}:ti.£)pti0n prior 10 *:he
year 1990, the question of  lifﬁifatiiéﬁ  Article 57 of

the Limitation Acf..vdiC§~:'1jQiazfigéa"J "    

24. Ceunsel.  fag the «fe;3p.015V1dents Mr, E'.V.Patﬁ has
strengly s1Vi§3p0:ieV€iV'viT1:i§:%-»regarded by the Trial Court. He:

has taker: ::1eu'£§:;:'b:;;gi;: _t£a1'e: réziésarzé previsiens under Section :9,

.731?   E5 {§f":h§_ Hi:2é1;: zédapiisn 3.319% Maintﬁnamce Asa

§__§E8'~a:'r1:§_ 2:s»3§1;'s:z:§ $33 rsigvané §§éi&€§i§:§S 312$ avidezzse ':0

&C>i:?é,:3:is;§.,a:}3§;: §E€tEV'*3?V'§;£78~S vaiié adagéégn. E: is  Qsriésiziéaxz {hat

Qga   i1:s ;bar:'a{i by Ems as {Ex piamiiffs wsys asgaiéing
u :":ig:i§:eV:V*éé aﬁggiiea that hag iakaiz 9:336 in '$513 year E§'}"§
 fi?V3i§:'g"';$h€ Suﬁ in 31$ ggsar §9§§. E-is refeys £0 $e{;t§:3:: 3 9f ihs
: L:%;:fi§iVa£io:: AC': agd as 3.235; ;%1"?i{3§€ 5?, is mzztezzai mat Essex: sf

'ha; 8?.' '§:':;3j°{aé;:§,{}::; sat: E56 raéasé 33, any gain: ef aims. E6 E133

S§;§"€3E'E§,§:€ S'§§§§}<}§""£{;'§a €215: §§::::di:r:gs r€Qa:::'de:§ by ﬁle Eiréaé $9222":

3'?
5; ,
E



RFA 7-48/2933

regarding ihe WEE} ee: ug by the piaintiffs me: havingefeen

proved in the high: of the mandatory requirementa~~e.e;2.f§:if:e{i 

under $ee1:i0n €33 Qf the {radian Succession Act.

25, Regarding proof Qf adoption, hev'has:"tirﬁwﬁig._{he'"a,fief:--ti6r:;_i

ef the Cour': $0 the averments in the 

piaint, wherein the plaintiffs  ,~::§J£ed '  féither of
defendant No.1 being the   €3'i'_'f::*z:;;iii:a;/"Era by using hi3
inﬂuence get created a _  Yallavva
took in adeptioxf; u(:ie;fienda.nt No.1 ceuld
not have been .e:{s;'  {ham 15 years at that
time and  in  document executed on
2§.G9.198{}v'A"Zi;;a1$  éhai; She haﬁ ﬁe: 'zaken

defenda::t--§§§a,Zi"'V§:§A a:d?:}pt i':>n: Smmsei fer the §'ES§€Z>f:tj€§'£iS

 eefziezatis .:?:.5;3r':, éﬁzsigs aveyrzéeﬁi in the giaini {iiseharges the Eguréen

e§':';.,%_:e s3eiV?e:':}§§:3;r:"L i§::.gseve me factum sf adegrtien.

V25.   the preef Qf eusmm if: Reéiéjg egmmuniéy is:
 a«:v"i:_V§§'iz::e1:. 9:" a '$952' ageﬁ maye $333 $5 years, he éraws
   sf {he Seat? :0 gafagraﬁéz E2 95 ﬁne Wﬁiien
 gaé 8:6 €'ifid€:T1§:ﬁ adiéaeeé in ihée Eegaré $5 B§2%7~2 1:0

 é:::>§:;me £3233: éhere was 138?; eézea 9. sszzggeséiezzz $31 '$33 erase-

examénaiéag 95 EEK: ehaiéeggéngf ﬁze vefséea ef §'x5£'~2 regarding

"5':
g '
jg

   

 



 

REA '§'4s{};'2{}O1
2G

the exietenee ef eustem. He else tevitee the e:£;:e:1tienVe'ef.ethe

Court ':0 the evidence ef IZ>Ws~3 &: ii, whiz: are 
witnesses and urges that valid adeptien has  pgeveldébye'? K V' 
producing EX.D~1 and by examining  ii) 43.3. -;PIeV:_{:i:rafv§fS'Vthe"«

attention cf the Court to EX.D~2_- deefee iI;1. O.S.,:NAQ;'339/; 

which is a suit filed for the same  Gee'. efgeinst
defendant Ne: herein whi«:;h.__ xvaeAe'1éa1."§I}'*'e'1'ee;'eeci« egaifiet which
Reguiar Appeal was files?'    wherein the
adoptien ef C}€f€f§_d&1%i:»:_iQ be confirmed
and the Regulaf  it was dismissed.
In the Speeia§v?,ee;€%e   fiizdirsﬁeg regarding the W11} was
 me finding by the learned

Singie §udgeV'e;?.:fé size  $eee:1G. Appeei regarding the

.va;dep'2ie;'§--¢,. {hie meiief'--*.&fee__;fe:na:':ded. ﬁe irzvitee eke aiieeiierz ef

 %:ie%;§s;..f§e.eEE§§g":Z352 » Jedgmee: ﬁe shew aha: §E?E?»3 was a

wi*:eeee'«.Whe 'iee eégeeé iéze eéeeelee {feed

~  Te eefeehaeéze 'ihe {gee thee': ﬁle feetzez: ef eﬁegeiiee wee
  Esznewieﬁge eé ?"~5E'e~E 8: 2 élggéng 'See zeeeih ef ﬁeieeer
  iiieeif, he izezitee the atiereiiee; ef the Gem': 'ﬁe 'ihe

 "A.__ef;ami::ai§e;r:~é:eweE:§ef eﬁ ?W~§ end else em ef ?'x.?€~2,

 



.=f<ié'Lv3:z*;g'  *é:?§f:§:~" _: manzééji   '

  1::  3:' 3:116' an: {*3 n:a:ema1s ma reﬂex:   



E
z
i

 

R§:Z/3. ?'4€3_;'2C>$ 1
22

adepiien deedg he had inaﬁvertentéy ieft it in ihe has irzﬁrifzieh

he was traveﬁing and that was haw he 103% the <:»rig2'1:".¥;:«.2.iﬁ,"» 
produced the certified Copy ef the adeptien _& V'
The produetier: ef this document; 

assertian macie by DW31 that hehad  0rig§;:rj:ea1v..2ir1e';:{1*;2ﬁV',_

was hew he was producing fheiiéertifieii'  not
challenged in Iihe er0ssvee5;e.minai1e§f}§:'» '"'Merei§}' V'E}e'e:é;.use {he
eiefendani: did me: file a  aewspapef,
the faetum of I0e.s:.{1:'g..f;he   it cannei; be
said that no  of the certified
capy «sf i;he----adQ§iieh:»V'él:§_ed   evidence. Seeiien 85(e)
of the inciien  etates that when the angina}

hag been desifejéesi eV:'i1e;*-jig e§%."':&7E:en {he party efferiﬁg evidence

ef its Ceégieneéeb Caiéiiﬁi fer any Gﬁhez" reesen net arisieg free: his

'ewe': :§e§eui€'Qr--.ﬁeg1ee: grsdeee it in reaeenabie éiime. 'i'here ie

{:0 §ee§:~;~<_3r1 Ea €;%;%s?§e;'§'ie§re éhe 'V€§"S§{}f1 ef éefezzéarﬁ ﬁe} Eegefﬁiag

 1:§?V:e 2eeé»:«""--::sf '¥§..e"e V§*§.gfi:1e,§ 3,C§Gp7Zi8},"i deed. There 3:5 afsse E19 Yeager:
 $58.} eheeéd wéthheid ﬂee ;9§'ﬁ§{iC?:ES§E ef 'she
  ii: heﬁ eei beez: Eesi Theeefere, the eenéeaéiene zzegeé

V[  €02/ezsei feg" Eihe a§§e§§e:2?;s eéatiﬁg 2323;: 3:0 feuzeﬁatiere.

 "'«._ i>%}e,$ éaiﬁ as gee Seeéiez/2 ﬁééfe} ef the §:§1"§{§éE:':z{Z'€ fie': fez' eeeéeeéng

eeeendiarjy" e'v2;éem:e eemzei 'Se aeeegetiedg
N»; w

//;;:f;§,M.

§

E



, ,,,...,ﬂw.,.WP»Wy»y wmnew$m

 

 REA '?4{};"ZC!Q E
23

3611 DW~.'3 ie an inéepenéent witness. He states 1:haiV~.1;1"e_<»_:vgs

present; when 'ahe adeptien :00}: place at  .
described vividiy what all tranepiree  :he'."iif11.€.{ 
ceremony teak place' He has stated t§:e§;:'  
Mahadevappa Kopad have miif;-::§.seee€iV_"Vthe  gefvléd 
identified the yartiee at ihe  505  deed.
Nething is elicited in  1:0 eiieeredii; the

version of this wiiness.   

31. DW~4  §§§%§LsVV';:s':eesen"t at the time of
eerem0ny._..vt§he facts regarding the
adaption.  Whe have signed the deed

Q5 adeptien Aziiee ﬁe: examineei it eanmet be said
4313: z:E;:;;%l:.'é§&'<;~§31:ie:1H§e..V::§e§§reveéE Pas zigiaﬁgg eerniendeﬁ by :he
31:: ihe zesgenéeaéeg ihe giaim; avermente
  ef the géainrtifie is 'she: ihe edegaiéem ﬁeeé

V' wag get: cgfeeieg  ﬁe eiﬁer breiher 623:5 Yeiiassva exeréing

'  ;:;'e.§e; he? ﬂaking aeévemage 9% E33 geeitsier: 312$

:e§&"::Zo§:s%:§p. Yhe éefefzdazzé $3; eredueéng £§":e zegéeéereé

..eEe{:u':"5ie::€ anﬁi 'sy examining iﬁe wiizzeeees Whig wez*e greeeei
.:%§3,e:: ihe eeremengr 'geek gage? {me sf zxrham has édegziiféeé ﬁae

pariiee befeee ﬁze 83:73-§{eg;§ei;zar Exes gseeveé {he faeézzm of

,9
5 «w».
2, ,1

   
   



,,.«r.----mw4vuc4/@'  

RF}: 'F40 {EGG}
24

3.d€3§ﬁ{)I} gariiczﬁarly becamse ihs plaintiffg faéleé is €1i<;€%;'--,any

rnateriai in {he caursa sf €:0ss~e:s:aminati0n Sf Brﬁﬁfsxiég »2:;:2' i:':_

cii$Credi': iheir versien and to disbelieve th¥3._V1*€:gisLtcr€d; 7

document.

32, Section Eﬁ of the Hindu Adeptiorf Mai1ji3V;C;2a.:3§¢_V'§Aét, 

1958, deals mth presumptian  pvégr law in
Case where the Same is  \3':ﬁ?.__'iv1 "1*<:bgist€1;ecVﬁ deed 0f
adoption. Unless argﬁ untiAI_..if; is,.V::i.i§§§3;%0x?éE':.;ﬁiﬂfegistered deed
of adoptian 1'EiiS€ii:';   édopigion is done as per
law. This V.  good until it is
disprevedg' ~  plaintiffs 'that such
§r€gum§:i¢;:*;  éthe insiagzi Case as {ha arigirsai

is :35: p$Q§us§é" s::_é;z2:3.€;'i Ea é!<3C€pi§§. 01366 $313 éefendant is

Eésigﬁ *f:§:I?1'é5s;=;€~§a.:'v:"§; faunééiéiiiz £9: pméuciian 05 £16 c€z*i£f§€§ Copy

$f'A3f§:g§s€,?e:fsé§i%«.g;.£:i»{:%§;?;iS; éséad er: aceezmi gf {E18 3933 of "£133 Gﬁginaé

 .' 3.}"}§   aegy E3 maréasé in ﬁkﬁﬁéﬂﬁﬁy {hat 'ma
 T'-«.._.§:%%%:§:i):;i :«:'gzz,,*:§',} .@7vq1f;':sc':i<):"2. §§' £25 aihar Siée, far fghe p:,::*§<:>s€ §f
  giaizztiﬁgg §£'€S';iE"§;8i}:GEE éirlﬁﬁi' Seséiaﬁ 16% as
 .__§ ';i§:ifi$iiG:a 23:; be mads Sfiﬁ $13 011123 9:" praef §:;§a;vﬁ§? 568:3 63%

V    giaiyziifig $3 reﬁut such :5tafL::Qry gresumpéieaa

2,»/"

%

mm
6%

 



RFA '?4Q,f2OG3;
25

33* EX.P-Q? is ﬂee vetere Eiet ef the year $989 ies1:'e§3  0151

E55,C*8'§Q8{} wherein the name eff ﬂefendanii Ne} 

Koppada Ramareddy Sic Hahumahthappa. eaghhee 

taken to Shaw that the name ef de'Ief1danf; "-I'10.:1  irxeivef'.

described by shewing his adaptive fathAe«rjé:':1e1me.»"§ihe».ade§§iioh' ~_

having taken place in the year ..:his.§?:ia.eumehtue%hiC'hV'has V

came into existence immedizatelye.eﬁieeeaffeexff ihfhee ahsence ef
any deeumehts of later   eay that the
adoption was nee aeieﬁ  {he plaintiffs,
Similarly, it gs    '  that though
immediateiy...afier:V'.'t§€::':   the namee of the
plaintiffs   feepect (sf S32: N056/ZA based

oh the 'WEE e:>ieeL'z':evdxhy.§'§;i£e{?*gse, 2: E3 dear {rem E;:~<;.F-5 the: éhe

eeid :,e_§:::a:ieh ehéigxy Wes set aside by éthe éseisiahi

I A'{'§e§"%1'::3%,e:s§{:.§he: f24vi":"~-Tfi  . 853 Egg'?

'   35;,   he }'E'}8:i€§"7§a§ greﬁueeé ie sheer ihaé: Efaiieszva

 wee stayizzg éziih 'éhe piaihiiffe. The veeere he: gseﬁueeﬁ in {his

  Exe.,E3~E2% ?~::'.% & $25 ﬁe he: ihtrew 3&3' hghé; eh this;

' ..§\fE"e:e'j%faeE Iiha': %'aE3;we was s:.E;e3;§hg in Sevagehéahaketii véiéege

  éléiliiei; be taken ie shew '£13? ehe wee sieyihg wiih ihe eieieiiffe

ehﬁ iheé; she haﬁ he eehheeiéeh ezaehh defehéegtzé; hie'? it hag

 

 



RFA 7i'§Qf2§€}1
25

Came in evidenca ihai the Cﬁstancf: between Devagendariézigatti

and Maggi :3 am}? about 2 is 3 kﬂzgmetrss. Th€f€f0£:§,"'C$féi'2 §f'if.

is to be held that Yaﬂavva was staying in Devageniiéiﬁakﬁiti  

said aspect if the matter will not assu:né'much.signifi(:banc€:; = 

35. As ragards {ha existence -pf €L;{;iS_t'€'}I171 i;.s.i"  

Cemmunity te take 8; boy above thé4L'a§%é   in iégdaptiong
the deféndant has specifiCé§._1';j;}4-- p1€.f:$;{.<:1<f;;"1v}"2f:V__éi;ﬁé«writte#§ %tate::1en1:.
In that regard, an issqae is   DW~2 has
stated in his   substaniiate the
existence of  Eommunity in North
Karnatakgg: """ é;§{1:'V<:1ence of DW~2 is not
cha1iengeﬁ;".A§»%zV;.:;V1,§r;éf_.'.éL:§%_§p:ja:§1'~«iﬁkr {he plaintiffs himself has

ejonccscisii. 'j9€f@:9é"f§i_i€ *§§:iaE 'C§1'i?}*: that Such a Cu$tc:»m was 131 53.0:

 i?1"v€XiS'i€}:££éi""§ﬁ 'E216 seréifiiimityé

 ._ v§iQE1§i$£;i_."v.§§3:':;.§§.:€ éefsszzidazzéig have giaceé raiianscre an $26

V gaségm-33:? 12:; %,'::'2:§ case 9? K§N§IBA RAMA 939.511., AHAS SHIRKE

H   §gi;":s§A'&:% B¥ i-ifs 33:33 & 33$ 3; $N€é'§}iER :33 ?~i;%R§.Yﬁ§\E E{GE*€E§BA

"§éa:»g;:i;»---.=':::g .1£§§. gs 3:39, v;%1€:&i§: :2: is hséé iiaé ages the

 is juéiaiaiéy feccsgnézai it E3 met Eﬁagziraé :3 'Q6

 §f1§€§€E"i§€I1§,3§§' gsmfeé 3?: :«3su'£:3s3§q2;:€§:: %JaS§Sg 3:: ﬁgs saéé sass'

ihs piajniéff ané £:§€:§€':E{§a§}'é Eéej §f>€%@:2g€§ ﬁe 221$ ares: '--fJhZ§€:'§'§ was

§ .,
ff' ; 
.= "E .»*"V


 



$35,

 _.§Bi:4::négs§£¥A sa 3312123 323 552233: {amt} A£Lé.S J5.E€AW'£§?;§ ~

,.,,,,,.~~A,-M._.._.wN~u»wmmw:»4 

REA '?4€}_;'2GG E
2?

part 9f the aid Bombay 813:6 'vVh€I'€ such a custom preV*aii €<i as
regards aetioption cf 3. Child at any ages, Even 
that evidence was led of {was instances sf   
belonging to the same caste where a 
age abave 15 years after the Act <:2§L121_e:1'A*i;Aﬁto  In x 
circumstance, the Apex Courf»  thhexztr.   of V
adopiion was astablishedv i's;§s: va1j.<1ii;g,; bcééhaliieézged on
the ground that the ad0pte df   the ags 0f 15
years at thg time .Qf 1:f1is_   has referreﬁ
to the Full benggh  Court in the case
sf  BAﬁA.Ri%O IRBAJI -as AIR 1983
BOMBAY  31$ in the matter. In the
mgiani cas<«§"'L¢:'g_;§s:},  :';*;},:§_?.:':3k2Vc:-as sf adepﬁan in Similar
"_:;§.ircu:z:;<:.:;§§:;§::t:s arén'  in €Vid€iE}C€; 'E316 same is smiths?
 éispﬁiésdi S11 {E26 ether hazzd, éihe prevaéenee af
sLis§;;_  :i¥§§V"V§9::ceded by '$336 plaintiffs ﬁirazggéfz theif

if;§:;n5é§Z"%3sf::3:"$'v:Ev:€ '"E':*i33 €013":

   juégmsgt sf '$233 513363 Csmf': ﬁg: ﬁiﬁ Cass $5

 _ €£~:%'3§8} :3 SQC 82'? raked :31: 'by the Egariizeé Caémggi aggésaririg

  f9: 3316 3.p§§E.Ea::é {sag :20 a§§§i§3i§,@z: :8 {ha fasia sf ﬁgs §if'€S€::E;

 



EFF; '§'<'iLC¥,I'2QGi
28

case. in the facts 0f the said ease, there wee :19 epee§ﬁfe 'g}}e3.

relating {G eustem in the plain: Ne issue was frarneé' .av1'"1dfr1"ex

evidence was led is prove the custom. In that baCi':grr3i,1:1eIg  V' 

Apex Court: has ruled that ad0ptio:1JH?)y"egs¢om 

proved by some Vague and indefinite e;:aten_{ents.i;:e the'. 

Similarly, reliance placed on the  Uf ﬁigh
Court in ihe ease Qf  «&"0T;EV§iERS VS
ANUSUYABAI 3: ANOTHER 264% is net
apposite is the faet;-.; 'fQf    present case,
adaptien is not   the basis of craft
evidence, a'::eegi'Es;tered deed ef partitiene
Hence,   standards of proef, which

eazmet be eai:§.__ft"<;_be" ';ae'y{ei:.dT_"_.'esusp:eiene 1%; can be heid in ihe

..§reee:1t}§:aee~ 5il"E3fE §;£'i.G§§§Q;T: ef the reepenéené }f\Fe.E is proveﬁ.

E+§ep_Ce,.. §€i}§I1il«§'§{)&§:.E"€g8§£§if1g pmef 5:" adeepiien is answeyed :1:

fave:é,fK::§§e§ei:;i_ai:éi ee 3: 4

»  ?sinE%,w_§?§s§2: £3 regarége paizzi :"\Ee=2 zehéeh pertaine £5:

 «.§i§:§_§::ge"geegaréérgg 'Gee gsreef ef iéie WEE? e:v<:ee':::ez:§ 'Q3; Yaiesvvge

  EX,§§§ zegésiered Wig éaied {§2,{'9%,1§§83 is ereézzeeé E335

  §§a?Ef§'§§§, 'me @5223 aééesiézzg w*i'i§:eeeee examined as E'We»2 &

3 have :73: eiaieé; £318.: eieeeeeeé 'E"3.§e:.:z:;e. hag eui her eigzzaéure

 ,_,./Z
,« - "J
2.: ,w"?/

 



RFR ?4C¥;'2C}Gi
2%

aeknewiedging the eemenzs ef the W111 and that they had .ei§;1ed

the Will in the presence ef deceased 'faﬁavva. The  3

referring to the requirement ef Section 53 of the Sueeeeeiefi   

has held that the testatrix Yallavva rniiet"h23.vte  <}r:--:V1;he"'.

Will in the presence 0:" the witnesses 

have ascertained frem her that ehe 'he,d Signet}  the V

presence «:25 Yailavva. Pv\7.£~/T32  'etateévein their
evidenee that they haﬁ see}: her mark to
the Will or that _ree»:ei{?ed a persenai
acknowledgmegsxt     '  It is in this

background Eh a{'ﬁde:'Z7;i,a1  aft  that the Will set up by
the plaintiff was nee::§;=eVedf'--j*f:e'Trial Court has also helei that

éhﬁ p§Qf€}11n(VViF€_I_"" '7v}§ ?,_j§1€'.. EFEEEEV mus: siemeve aii ezispieieue

_.eireumeti:a§1eee as ﬁe' eeuss ef gmef W213 be 0:: him" Earidenee

':a_€§{§iii:eé 'Q3; "%§f:e4 '§;»?.a_§;f:E§ff eheissge {hat {he eeuef; Ejeiew Wee ﬁght

ené ~.§i§sé:;f§e§'_"_~%::ﬁéeédieg $323: See §Eaé:1':§f§e V;/he were {he

V §;:rei"eu':§§e:"----Vef "ﬁe W311 igeﬂ faiiezﬁ $0 éeaé eetiefaeteriiy evéeeeee

 {fie eeueé, heeiih age eieeeeebie eieie ef miseei of

'%:'fe,§i"a.ée§e;'A'e%: the time eéee ejiegeéljg executed; the 'ﬁfélé if {he

--«.e%:"£;ife evieéenee ef the etieeéizzg eﬁineeeee ?We~2 $3 3 ie eieeeéy

jiéeyeeeei, éheee ﬁe eeihieg €33 ghee: éiézeé. the eiteeiéeg wétneeeee

eégeeé in 'Lee esreeeeee Q? ﬂee éeeéaiiez', $21?-2 ~» Sheeeeveeraieh
s

A'?

E

E



 .W.,.WWWmmm«ammwmm

, .  M._.~_M,,yw,w% 

RF}: '}'3§LO;'2GG1
30

whe is one ef éhe aiiesiing vvﬁnese is the 1351;: Ex?» 19, dgihes :10:

say when are where the W121 was exeeuteci and aiszeeé'
which place ané at what time he signed the    
attesting witness! Similariy, PW~3  
examinatiendneehief regarding the   

Yaﬂavvae He enly states about he aiteeted  exlong V

with Bharamappa. There no&,.e;'iheif'~e§§?i'd_e:1eeA'«ei'Lhe:'V: :0 Sh0W
izhat ihie aspect, nor is theee  aciduceri
ta shew that the  at the time
when Yallawag.   presence or after
receiving   E§,%L'§i<::;--ew1cEc1gmen: regarding her
signat11rei:::§:: «:;h'ev.V§} V;i1'%-.. witnesses signed, the Will,

Thus? ihe megizsﬁafeij?' :eV:;ui:ef_nent €01/Rained unéer Section. 83

ef ihe ie§j&é'£aeASuCee'seé_e:é Eaez, is ieiaiigx aeseni azizé iherefere {he

V. Léighéy heié éhai the exeeagtieiz of gee WEE} is gee

§;ageee;e %.ee¢'e~;:;e»;;:;m in éhe ease ef zsxgeeezz emm me

 €:Ue'3:A""e$ emssu $  eggs §E.}'P'I;i M AER 2955 St: 363

'§g;§£..: 5%? €§€~'$4§ eermeé be made ageﬁeabie :9 the facts ef ﬁze

4;3:a::feee%:::i-- ::'e;ee C!;§§§§€f§.§§§%§ eke: am}; beeauee ihe '»%%'i{E'1§SS€S die}

" :~2.€ieie ii} ﬁe exaezineiie:2~§:r1«ehie§ ihafg ihey bee eigmeé {he
 "--.. ""'s.«'§ﬁ§ 1:; file §E'€S€3€"i€:€ ef Eée teeieéee, mere Wes me épeie

V. a§;'£ee:e€;2le:L The ﬁgex €023": €233 miee ix: eke eaie gzgdgmeni

5* 

5&4' .»~'""M)yj
ad" 3
£
£7



REFS; '?4€3/'Q0832
3.1

that it wauéé Cispenci upon the circumstaneeg elisited V,:h--.Tthe

zsvidénce ix) find 92;: Whether the W13 was dub: aiiestgid/géé'  '  "

39: Thaugh it is true that the meréfact t:h.at"':';:it'L€I9é:1 b1':gi1*s 
were excluded cannot be a suspicieus 3::irc;1::;{3tz~i:1ci::. sis tIn:§:"hA.:d'i::a,'

behind execuiian of a Will is to i:'itc::f'ere ixnfﬁh the hfze Cf  

succession as emphasized by the  Lljplevhintiffs by
referring to S€V€I'8l   nhhmade the
said €:'aSP€3Ct as théfiasis   Will was not
preveci. The maiiﬁ  fzhf 'SC'»_§ﬁ;  'is---the lack of material
evidence from   ShOW that they had

seen the    rhhhhaark an the W111.

aéﬁ, ?oi:ni  .%sVVVre§a:r'§k%ﬁ:hs paint sf hmitaiian, éefendani

_%¥E&i h?:.§;.% Sfgsscifiéaiigsjv raifseci the hiss: Q5 hat :22? Eimitahlah

A'a::2:2A_:$:1djVib:;§;:b'  3215: having hat harsh ﬁiﬁé within ihrees

yﬁééz; v1:3§V','§ﬁ'fi"£§§§!€f,.{f}{é.§;F§E€£i3 ragayééhg €i§i:§;ara.'si§@:: Ehaii: Ciﬁfénﬁgili

VE\1'-Veg} v€§é£:»§ riiﬁ £33 aﬁshéssﬁ 3&3, éhs same was hgrzsd hf; time.
""?".':ii§E {i'%:;:;ri hag faiiezé :9 frame any igszzg Qﬂ ths pkg
 ha}: sf iirhiigtiezz. in the: juégmsh: miséez' Chaéisngs,

VT  C9222'? hag heié that 33 ihere was as }:SSEi€ fE'EiI"3,'i€§ wiih

 Eégarﬁ £3 bar ef Eimééaiiegz 333.51 33 he sviﬁsacﬁ 1733.8 335% ie shew

Whah 332$ giaézzétiffg @3338 2Q hzzow gs? f/his 3,i:§;£2§s§iSi'2, 3'16 33% ﬂea
 M
ii



R513; ?'4G,f2GG§
32

regarding Iirnitatierr had to be treated as abandeneé Z§j;'--.Tthe

defendants and 'rherefere there was no rzeeessiry §:r>__g2Ty"er-

finding regarding tihe same'

4:. Seetier: 3 0f the Limitation   

subjeer 're the previeions eon?;ai:'ie-ﬂu in Seetiene   every 

euit instiruted after the preseribeuL5o5£"V«r;e1*ig;fd  riismissed
although limitatien has  E3  as  defence.
Therefore, it was the   to consider
whether {he suit "p--a:;rieu1ar1y when the
plea of bar 05'   taken by defendant
Nerf: in   erraneeusly come to the
e0neiueier:vv--'1'??'3'i £19' aﬁﬁueed regardiiég the bar ef

Eirrriiariesﬁ 

'$2.. $.23 *ferer,, -§.r2"'~--%:he eezgree er" {:E'GSS~€X8;§RiIE8§§iGf1:, 9&5»: has

aeErr:5.ri'e,d Er? §=§.re§reph E4 egg: 'reirervva hare eireeéeseé re hie

V' eerrier  ~';g§ai::::iff Exiej 3% rear haé irarzspireai err: Mageeiu
' eppereraiiy rrreané; 'rfr1e eeiurr: er" e_e§e§rier2,., ﬁevreverg ﬁe
 338 £36 rreé Eirrexv wheiher péairzsriff ?€e.E Ereéi yeriféeei?
.}::>j;;*""(::'::3%:3.§'r:§r':g zihe aéegrierr eieeé erg rﬁtae EFSEE': exeeuieé 

hifaélavxre. as eer her ésersrierr. Eée §uré:§':er aeirriéie ﬁche}: in EX.?~2{E=/1

ﬂee eargeeélefgierr ﬂeeé éefgeré §§x{E§,E§8§ '?§Jh€§€E.i§E§€'f ﬁée

/~,>'
er'
,2'

   

/r

 



RFA '?%@;'2G=C1 3

registered 'W112 €X€CU.i,€d €311 {}9.8'?.i§'?9 in f8f'JGE}? Czf defs::ﬁ'da11i

N33} cams :3 be sancellsﬁ, respondent No.1 wag avg'
Ramappa, son of adoptive father Basavaréddy. _& V' clearly admitted in the cr0ss«eXaminat.ib}: bthat at t11e 1i1rr;e_w1ie:i"§ EX.P'~2O was registerach the factum of iaddpﬁzioll \x.f;;t_ S knewledge of his senior unc1e~P1ain;t'i'ff N03 .It'is_ --;a.1§Q vfélevant ':9 notice hcsrza that PW~2 vi;:«; an aglvéjcégte Vﬁgztpreféésioziv and has been carrying 01: advecaey Siﬁﬁé
43. As rightly" Article 57 of the Limitation p é@c )d of limitation for the date cf knowladge ef adoptioxwé the admitéséiyg plaintiff {ﬂag}; hack' the KﬁGE'§'}€€j§€ éf :1 é0§iie::"-aéT(.>:1 the date EX.P~2G W38 executed ¥:_f§€i,' §fi"'£§§.,?~E{}? Yaﬁamra ziesciiibes deferzdagt "as a!ivé;.'gi€§ 3? Sasairarsﬂéy and SE&t€S ffizaigi aciapﬁaza ' vb}? f{>'EiG§%§€::g3.?§§l"E--:§i:€v reqmisiie prasssdurﬁ had 39?; 'meg: sffﬁcied ~ gfgii éhai ss:;'::;e :§§6E :29': accspt him 323 $333" aééepteﬁ gar; §§f€§1§ai'3€Z .§:;::af$"s§€s23Zfis:a£§§ igéiﬁzé 3 giaa E3 ggragraph 3 $5 $316 wriiésiz
-..S% a.:€::l:1e::%: {fiat 815 321:: was bafrsé $3}; Eirzziiatiazz. 'E36 reiiaf if: 2323 §§;8_§1'iE is €SS€?£}'{i8;§}' 59:" 3 €§€€§§&'8;§;i{)§i ilrzafe 'gigs aéaﬁiigg sffacésé SE1 :23§8§}.§%§7E% aad regisieréd an €§§*$§.Zi§'?§ fig: 3/' M ,, .._WM,w«a.»,wawa/azmzogrgevvaw-woe RFA ?4Q/289} 34 was 3 created document which did zest ssnfer any rigs: in favsur of {he defendants. Therefore, the Trial Cou_:s:i':_ have framed a necessary issue regarding the peintsf liijzzitsfidﬁ and answered the same based on:'Jif1e"'p1e'adings"<a;1d"°ihe'1 evidence on record
44. It is clear frsm Sectisn 3 of plea. sf bar of limitation can be anei she court including the appeliate couréi. «-:s1:'uty to consider the said questi0'r;f: urzéier Order XL} Rule 24 of CPC, ffame necessary issue regarding the same prsvicied {he glesdings supper: sueh a finamg.
Ae<:0:'diI;g'1y, €:3.2::!: '- frsmeﬁ the issue regarding §§r;:.§ta€is:% s;:':.e'i 83 Ehereéss spesifie gséea {sizes eegazidézig the be:
sf §§1:§;ifi'V8§§:§i}§:».AV §:::,%" eeieneam E35? and as ?W~2 :1: Ems mess» ' exazsiizsiisg. edmitied iha: eismtiff E\'§s,E has imswieége (>5 aésp%:%:e_ﬁ as 0:: me daze E32:.?~2€) was exeeuieé C211 "she sag? eugh: is have been. 'brssghi ehaﬁeziggag said aésgﬁss within, iﬁeee }»'€38.§'S fess: §§g{3§.2§8%i}, tie" is an GE,' Eseisre €3$.€}§%.§§83. B151, éhe suit is fies es §k§.@3a E§§% seaeiy sféer 5. fagse sf 8% :€€ai"S site? éhe geeiscé sf RF}: ?4Q,/i2;{}®§ 35 limitatien, was safer. Hsrics, it has is be hslé Elia: the suist"--fil€d 4:' for éeslaraiiisn Elia: defendant N<:>.i was not the adQpt_s{3;.l:ss§V; 'é.LV.' deceased Yallavva is barred by limitations 45' For all the aforementioned r€a;s0n:s;s..l' CR) I1QVfflfif:fl"-._§EliE§,f' illegality iii the findings recerclcadvzirid @153'vj'L1£lgi'3;l_é}.ljLv.ifT§§'lflCi'l€I'(iZiZi dismissing ihe suit. Hence, this a;5psal.Vbsin.g' dsxkeid bf merits is dismissed. Parties shall -b€;:1r t;lf1€i:fvr€S}>_€vClilV§3 csstsi
Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court
