G Nagarathnamma vs Muni Reddy @ Gulla Reddy on 31 July, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

G Nagarathnamma vs Muni Reddy @ Gulla Reddy on 31 July, 2009

Bench: N.Kumar, A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 

§
2
3
.2
:
§
§
§
§
K
E
E
§
Sun
§
§
3
3
.:
r:
3
E
5
E
E
E
1
f5
5
E
3
3
.2
E
5
§
§

W "¢M"<n»'"4WtW~s'= Wnwiﬁ '5|9%ﬂ'"'UVkﬂ»l"'KﬂI29"WLK'N!"& $b|i'o?E"wé«.- '0<v»~\!e:a=>'~'<marW.'$A Vcwi aw»

 

JD!!!B!Eﬂ£lH3GDlErCﬁFEUHIIEEASUASWBAJHHNEGHUB

mm}: raxsrm 31-: myoF.:U:..v,2oo9
mwm V
rm mrmmammumnx Im:un«% 'j 1 'f"i«.  _

rmnormmmwrrnna  _  :.9.7[ﬁ<M23'   M 

RE": E2:  2

EEE

I

«"ikGE*.i--?»3  *

cameammmmmw 
w;ov:s:LL.Am::x:xsr  *
AGE:32YR3  %  
R/O1?"I'ﬁ3\'@%    
    =

c¥mm>Lm% % Wm &HALL¢e'sRmD«'!é RIOA'i¢s}.3_, J ' 3 ﬂ.V3--vLQK4§3!iEE3'£EAR."

$319 '@ cmxwna nznmr '=A Eﬂ&R§RgﬂKL46,2EE>Cﬂﬁ8 ' . " MEVIEERAGAR : (Hyatt: &A88T8,ADV) ' mama GULLA awn?

APPELIANT§ sin mm umamn @ mm REDBY i»~§§€%M cam? 03 mmmmm W65-i COURT .m.w~w»mm mwr: emwwm w;.r,;n.l&a(Ni&iﬁ%A WGH (SOUR? OF iW;WWNJ'&Kﬁ iwﬁﬁﬁ COEWT £3? KﬁsRMA7fA%'?'i;x, 8 I YRS, HAGAREDDY BABAWAHE OF'P:'I'0 AHEELE HOBLI AHEKAL TSALUK RE & mo mvsnmmammuv no.5, H (moss VENKATAPURAH mm ROAD KORAHANGALA 8 W10 gIsDDY._ mo wuamnm * cnmmmm app. To Awezmlé-snm A1wExaL'naz.uK.w~1aM:cs§31;om;%;%% _ ERALIIIMQ % % % % 8 : -w«-*>.::x*~1m'%'*$£1 vvaamr wwmwmwmmwarmwwm Iwrwwk 'mo'mﬂ'iﬁ'l\l 'kl! ruwmavmlmnm IIIVGFI ho\aa5W>Jl%ﬂ WW WMWEVMEMWM 5IW¥%WX°'I kgﬂﬁﬁmﬁﬁﬁ .!IWwmuww12zm'\aWwNMt*W LY .' - -c um-urea wr-u nt,A'I.¢Hm"'n wmmwmwumm -urn:

7 c smm M0 940 Jmnun mo A"I'T1BELE I-IOBLI cmmmxm ¢ﬁA AHEKAL mm mnnmonm GOPALA REDDY szommcammxm I EAJOR, mm 303001. wmzg = j ' , BO mmGE":.A Q ATTIBELE HOBLI, , * % ANEXAL TALUK, Bh1'lI3ﬁI.0RE BK..Lh(3aQBI81"i ~~._ « s/0 mm g j x * mason, ~T8G§€ﬂL B<)%ﬁANDRA".'II}IA(}E_ %% A'£'I'I£.!E§;.E'_HOE!LI§ AmK.~s:.1ua1,UK;%k{~%%% % , % 12 .

* mMom%mm: Emmy ccznomr 01:32:15:-:3 % » _A'1'rI:3E_LE'Honau A3R..?8i2IHNAS

- %%%a;0 mun?

BSAJQR, max nanny comm' CHA ;;):t>:£>: m3..:-s1°rmELE new RA REES}?

HAJOR, HQGI REIJUY 601013?

Wm mow ma-mmmm.m.m mwn uwwam ywwifammwnamﬂh mam %ﬁ.§£WA"ﬁ"m{A Wﬁii CUUW" 0? mawmmm MGM CGHRT GP mmmrmm WQH ﬁﬂim"?

15 15

C C3A OPP. I33 A'l"I'IBELE HOHJ BANGAE 8;oLA'rEHARAwRULmcaAmnREnI5¥_'; "

R] 0 E:V' CHANDAPURAPOET A!!EKAL'i'ALUK BANGALGRE 14 L mmmzmsmnw am mm REED'! 910 LATE Lmmm axsznmf mo & .

mmALoRng -

K R A $40 H.mm vmaax' """

"

- .8W5TH'MWi-

% j kwm mm % REDDY mmen % 8G I 11031,:

11/' s>">tm'*k».vrrw. nmwmrmm E § § .:

g E § § § 3 E R 3 § 3 § 3 ::

5:3;

§ § § § § ;% 3 3 § 3 3 § § 3 § § 3% 3 E § § ;

:9 § E E E g 3 § §__ ._ § } 3 13 19 RAMA ED?! 5; <3 VERKATAREDDY BA.GAI3.AII}E1'IAH.&LLI VIIAIGE Ma'-KRASUEU F03'?

AREKAL TALHK Kﬁaﬁﬁﬁ HGBLI, BANGALDRE R D£f.3"I'KL¥MI}DA.LEAR 91z mmwaza ANEKAL Kaaaaa HQBLI _ ANEKAL TALUK * mnmmaz k [By am am: : B V B§ﬁxLI.%.1;:'E?_;EII)I}'i";'I*;I#)'§' R23 ass % R-I nmnmsnn as 'Amfr;s.: nq;_ 1 AA THIS RFA FILED :z,~é_ fan'-. THE JUDGEMENT DEGEEE 28; 29.es.2ca1 mssw IN FILE 0:: THE PRL. c.m:L RURAL :r.>m*r., sun ma PAR'I'1'I'IGN Am:

smagafﬁ' wasmafsxéré.

* .. 1,: cmmtt; 01:: man Immme mm my, ~. émxvmamn THE Feamwme:

defendamaa-2 and 3 in the suit. Wife of Hagi Raddy - 20 are the purehasera of suit schedule ' :1 4_

5.

nuwn mwuni wr ammmmmimum ﬂlhrﬂ muwm Raddy, ruvumm ms:

tiefendant. A laycug am was formed in Sy.Ha.11}--1'.éﬁ'--i~V1w}?V3 3 acres mm I':f°.§:1gi'Reddy and mm' ' 3 grow» I -uninrvnn II! 'I\l'1I\I'l"Isll"l£§ﬂ"

51'. Th: plaklm motbm' 'IIFIUWTIUIFW duet!' death, plam' em mhenm1' ' Juan' :5 nmr-nu-mu **!-Mamie gr . madam, mi share in the " _ belotging no Nag Raddy devolves

- and as she. is dead and pmm ' mm' ':

M."mn='m-m rwwuv morn-m no also eemtend am: as I was 1 daugmaar ofthe ﬁx-at wmaant, in the pmpmy has mum to: the share of mt dafendant. aka they am entitlad to 1/43! share. Hag' Raddy muted a

-an I aw-uru.w-vwmmwr-um-am--M-.u-m : win on 29-9-1993 bequmtmeg his share m the Mani Raddy. Thaw: was Kggx; ' Reddy and ma mt defexndazgi'.<.V' * zme&§:att1%%&a£fi%%Hsgi L awn-.. aw-us-w-H 'urn om"-u umuuuu-an llnuwlnl wmnww-Ina'='<s.>n wow mwmnuumywtrum sxmwaa mwwm\m 'Harv: IuM"'Itw'um\stu"Is2n.w"\wwr-n rs: unvaa-unnmm V rclatiomhip act am; hi the mm However, he has apacammy denied that pnﬁ mggh#r44":"..V'$:nt Kamaﬂ who h the aaugmr of am, given in adoptixn to law Hagappa_@ saga wiﬁ: smncrmmm. sy;§o.4a%@T Sy.Ro.111f2 was the death of 21¢ aim that stands in his name. 'Vﬁaold by him to of Nnsapw @ i ' of will by Nagi Raddy in A Iwtupby the ' ' .

- _ _ ma mt &&&& Will dated 22-94993 undczr Ham' Ready has beqmthed his mm

-2 &3. me mdwma 1 kaameam-9--1993m1 on tha mm caning' Raddy on 29- it has come into eﬁect. mamtm are mam rightsuniarnnunruﬁinr-ad'Wil1wi'n1chl3as nut been execttedbyﬁagéﬁeddy. Itia aha stated that Eagi 13 wommdmmowﬂmttmkmmm wm anadnpted dauglnaarcxflhgnppa andclﬁxznaﬁ WW wwmﬂe awwamwwmuymauw.

E tam; of the child whmwm given 3 astablshad' .. Moreover, it it taken place even. In thus Hindu Law, " ' and no Imswrmw wnnwvurunn custom was such adoption arr-mum-m iv.w'"*um«.n warm Will set up by the ianot mm mm into aimzme in a Ewrww wwwmm "WW IL just me days prior to the eviianca an record shows that 5 E § } 3 E i ?' § 9% 2 i ;

§ yvpg-ier teammr was unconscious. In fast, Q an mcord aha shown that scribe 5f the win Will on a blank paper to which Lm had been A by thefathesr ofthe pzmmfs.

2. In fact, the irialccurt cm a M oral avideme on record has tiiﬁii F. , ya .5' 3 as ?

§ 5 § Wfsua %ﬁ"9K I£*%#'"\ﬁ§'°in$z"n'€£Z""°€4f€.'d'"'£#.W"&&""t eusztvbwﬁw wwwamm w.;a- '<31-m.~a,m 1'?

subsequent events tmrerfromto buttrwa hh in to be: held under mm-as Hammw, girl '15 not panama' , R % pe..1'm® such adopﬂon,_ the upheld as it am tnmrcre he m mm adoption of he aonhensded that 5: the pmmm ' had in adoptm and giving has run' share in the to wmm the property shank! . V. go;VW§'1 ord,er to prove the Will, we attesting been exaaxninad, even though scribe who hﬁa *; in the me has turnad hostile. Tm '- want ofthis evidmm clearly establishes the meeutkm cf the win and the said win is duly §a:l:tmted by taro wétnanam uni there in nothm umtural about the Will and tharefore, the trial Court 7» g 3 3% .......u..-.u.--. -nu'-avail vacuum was mmmuvmammm mm:-n *¢w£,.JiM[£g {Jr ﬁmﬁmﬂfﬂﬁﬁ 19 has mtwrimny stated that he do not know who haatntnr 371:, he has not saw him and mu blank 2 paper e¢nta1'ning LTM was gwn to hm and k mm times win. 15%. tbs ./Wbn shows that on ma date of Will wmoh 'ia *a_§a £d :o 1;am % been eznacumd, tnsutatnr unoomciousness am! exncutsad um win. on the to his am he in my ﬁt' as therefore he contends A _ the afo% material on record and the:

Qrssiﬁmkaﬂon are as undem-

ﬁ Whethm'thaﬁ:xiizgoftha'I'1-ialcaurt thatthephmﬁhavaﬁiledmp:-ate the adoﬁphon of 213%: mother V 'I'myhadmiaaues. héxnliﬁeddyhadtmeedalxgttma V _ vi-3., xama1% ud Shartnnnna H Roddy died on 29.9.1993. Duxim his life time.

Q 9 3i "Q §:

§ 5 .17;

§ 5 L9 3 E 9 E 3 § 91' mag Roddy, Muniaeady bomtmaqkz - 1 9 X in in uaamcwuna, me have two appam 9 9

14. Pxamtim amthea Kamahmma _ .' V was adopted by 99 may may ism was :::o-pammzary Ilsuamrswrwz uruwnwww your-uuvnxm warn axe-mxmuwurqug-gs-'.3-Q

9 properﬁw A; ~ the pxaim E was mun-a1 aaughm of Mani 9 % % Rag', in am cnmled an V49: share in the § i 99m to Mm Raddy. 'l'herefore the said 9 mm. as share in the armmx prcperﬁas O % F % mom to ram Ready and ma share besomw no Raddy. The case of ndopmn want: is pleaded by am g 3 3?

Q E E g E E E 55 3 ;

§ § 3 § % § § § S V E E 3 E 3 3 3 5 Wm! WWI IH'l""'As1\J"'Il it I mt be apprvopriam. In auch , the subaaqum mnduct of 1th parﬁm aﬁ the e.ve:ntswm:h' much: betazmmm eonaictersaﬂ , out whaethntr the adopt:on' i . ﬁuj1'f j rule is not appmame to me who saw the adopnm % with In the pmsm cane, about 7'0 to an age of that the adoption took do not spank about essential A ofthse witnmses has apeluan that _ Atagt requh-mm cf Jaw. Tmnﬁam, there is 11:) 1 evidenae of giving and mm; af the child in As such the oral cvidzmoe dam not wtabﬁah ' %'t1'.B adaption pleaded by the paw. However, an weddmmrd.onwhichtherelianceiaplawdon,aoes V. vm-amr"|Ii\«r'lL lMVul'i'il WWWNH NIT Nﬂmﬁwﬁgﬂﬁﬂ upheld the legal position that it is now well settigd. that anadopﬁonofa daughmr is counsel relyirg on Section 5 V 'V "

Mt, 1956, on the: date the: gr] was and not rammed' under of such Act right waxvcm15&1'r~:i_ k-..

Hmdu Adoptinm and

-#5; as so regulated ag X Ho adaption shall be the oommmwmwt at' this:

by as: to a Hindu mccpt m with the m-oviskwm adoption made in m n of the saidprovisiom shnﬂbewid.

IQIAI1 miapwn wlﬁch '3 void smll naﬁlam'cz'eataeuz;yr'g&ir1theadoptive \/.

M ?_...q.;:.A mwmmnwmaﬂmaﬂ rwwm %.UUKi wr W3:.RNﬁ%'§"ﬁ§?-':s'§,;e'»3< §"%'§%I.-§?~%*% ﬁ@UWF W? WﬁsﬂNA'3"!%K& Hiﬁﬁ {$015127 0? KﬁRNA?AKﬁ HEGH CQURY mm: infavrmr ofany pca-son which hf: or she could not have aoqumd e-.xeep<:, reason of the adoption, not deagtsji _.__ A' rishts afaﬁif Penna in the T Q orharbérthf Sub-sention (2) which E void ahaﬁ adoptive family mama: than he or she mu" 1*" °f ﬂw =d°Im'°na mt the family of his

26); that of an adoption in vain! prior ufthb Act, that: Act would not §i:(*«h...£'%ht he the child in the property.

" '3 clear that an the adoption was the yam: 1948, under Hindu Law it was the ma adapntm is was and ab-ixzitio, " no mxatom 01' mm at' that ﬁlm' ﬁrmly' is mt prmw. In the absetnm ofproaf even on yound of 1%, adop$n amt be %p1:ed. 'I'3;:a1: is 3/"

wkmw Wm wmMamae'I:a"'<uwr"\|\.<a*='% -::'»--».~ . 2 -mmx.:»>*w"ae"o.is wrai. rsm~%W<M:*asrmwa*waLvww'm IH6I€wa"tx9e I-¢\pv4mfg\>q gun unr"mIm.mV;mr"wwr'na'ul"u nmnswvmm wurvuua wan rwuwmwwwowwarwww Imwarnl wmmuwwmu 'ﬁg' -'>- my my ﬁwxwvwyg-g W Wag , V- .. ls. '» - 'kw preﬁmeiy what the: Tr-ml Court has bald km itrs ardent. The Trial Court Inn msmea m the emcire caaa law an the P°im. Taldra into oamicierauirm the oral '.Ij : E ~ regardmg' the adoption and other rightly came to the aonchzaion that ad¢pt{i+.*;:1 'A the pmnum in wt proved and the Trial Court in so ﬁat ms the c}am1' of the plam&' ' as on 16331 and vam and it does an: % of the Will pmpounded by it 73 their «case that Nagi Redciy as per Ex.P?' an %.9.1993 sehm in the anmshml pmoperties in plasmm. In fact the ﬁrst defcxldant has win dated 22.9.1993 whack' is duly % under wmah the said Naai Re.-dear is said in A' 15$ 36 share in favour of d%% 2 %u.~. 3, the ottw we aaugmm of mum Reaﬁciy. Both the 'parﬁeukmvuamadaanatwptmpaavaﬂmirreapecﬁve was. It is not an dispute um Ragi Ready diad 9;; 29.9.1993, three dayu after tbs mnacution qr Ex.?? % days am: Ex.2€)2 the will set up by the L mat dmaanm have exawned the He has categorically stated that 116 Ez:.P7. Tha mm: k1-eg1%ay% blank papers with L'I'Ma an; ev£de.rIce appears diﬁ'i::u1t. no believe. But. are satisﬁed that it is a Lwm 5:: paper aiter nbtniraixag éaf eviziemae an regard shows statue of mzneaznciaounnaeus to ma death. Em ma at' wimasm who tiepesed am not oonmem.-. in the Clear: to act on cm A AA Inthe bodyofthaﬁlillatﬂmfixstpaga, it that tbs mate: has not animated me in any ma@.'l'11at portinn 7: marked aa ....... \wnwIsUl*Ua 'f-I.l:" mmassumaawwa ﬁﬁ-WW L'Ui.m"K' 0?' KﬂﬁM!k%§"§aa§<£§é% %*§§€§v%"'£ EWUWY 3? Kﬁﬁﬁﬁﬁﬂﬁﬁ HEGH CQUW? 5? KARNﬁTﬁa§(A §'i§GH CGURT Ex.P7(iJ. Tmﬁ. m the last four linen, which in in R/..

s".vmr',Lt#"°§1:"<:m"Y€« £"'&IWo3o'9$""ﬁ MWWNI diﬁ'em-mt ink, it is recited that on 23.9.1993 has made a. joint Will which he has canseﬂad I\\l"VHH-IIVa£"UI!n~!'"isxNu'"'n llawnl mwwnn \..#'|t; w'<;,¢§"»-5_ _.

a mding that npt it uvm-an caxmot be acbad upoi Will in not M nu-urnruu proved. ia "aL7ax;ua;1 on mm, it wlrm is settled caurt appcrecaa' has the man one oral deranm of the w1mes' W, ahnuki be sbw in E offact recorded an the ; * % mm with me well c¢n:sid«m'ed, weﬁ ;, 34 M ; Mm hm Court holding am the of an wimmea does mt establish the van. ; $ said evxi¢moa' am mt dispel the suspiciaus \/ made. the pmem: win. In fact the recitab at all am-xy mtablzhhau the axecL;tin_r_; ' * The Trial Caurt on a proper . evﬁmue of tbs atiamtixg L' _. v--''laI7IU ism' V_,... .._ nnnmmsmmm ruwﬁ Lwmiai U!' ﬂiﬁﬁ cam": CW-' KARNA"¥"N'{A HEGH CQURT OF iCMZNATM(ﬁ HIGH C3133?"

ciroumota% aurmunding the Will and the wmoh in emecutad '3 fabsricataw cm. In that View of the claim of the pxaimm on the basis

23. Tim learned oonmded that even if noimw to be pzmnd, Will 73 in {sf the subsequent to the I-Iizxiu A%% in the to am said Act par wﬂha son an , . 'si.1FP3i'A contention he relies on tzbesjudi of Court which bald that the aubaaquem ~ mm be taken: mm :25'.

24. Though the said submissions he}: very

-. = 3"\ii<<""*2r¥€£""J¢'$%'%.¥"@. arwmwm Wukﬁkﬁﬂl a.t:tra::I::ive, in the fuck oftlﬁn case, it is not possible acoedc to the request of the appallanm for a Ef iIj : A- tha matter. The pkﬁ ' came to ~i:';g_v,. "

Iiﬁ'hI'9't¥LI WWW"! WV deﬁnim me that theyam than daughtm at MAT &% 7: 7 who in em adoptive mum was mum in tn; .' * Amuadm to the Hindu in the 'I'hm'&re, even K-,3 «l-~ :lg'.3 'a mt ezmma and me was not cowpai ptropmtiea.

E Em-43. not lmw film! a suit agﬁmt a E the dam of Hag Ready. thc mat E %% X Nag Raddy. How we have recorded a. % ﬁnding that the adoption is nut puma. x A' _ inthis suit the plainﬁ mmnot be permitted * . tn aeeka partition ta1c?q_na1:e ofthe suhsequamt wmm. Strangely m the am: the plamtm claim as. anaxc hm \/

-au$vMr'Q the share aflfag Reddy and 1153! share: to fzrat Wm the Ether was aﬁve, daughter claim would not axis;-:. " J on mcaord dimhm that m"t:ag the year 1994 and mom W M Remy was he has been ﬁrmed, buium, they are all .....u.. wwwnIA my nmmavﬁhmfsm l"'iiU§"1 WJUKI U?" ﬁ%i5é<&"w~'«~;i?f%%ﬁa WGH COURT 9? WKNATRKA H§GH CQURT 9F KARNATKKA H53" €C3UW' it is not possible to find out pmwaes harem to the may Fmpatym 01,: today.

a " " them c'n-cunamnxaes, we are taf the View mt be appropriate to want liherw to the ta ﬁle mt:-1pn1@nre' suit £91' m.rutJon' ' and V.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

G Nagarathnamma vs Muni Reddy @ Gulla Reddy on 31 July, 2009

Bench: N.Kumar, A.N.Venugopala Gowda