Smt Chowdamma vs Sri Ramalinge Gowda on 29 July, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Chowdamma vs Sri Ramalinge Gowda on 29 July, 2011

Bench: Jawad Rahim

1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29"" DAY OF JULY 20} 1
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM 

R.S.A.N0.1724f2008

BETWEEN:

Smt.Chowdamrna,
Since dead. represented by LRS.

1.

Sr:i.H.R.Bhuvaneshwar S/0.Sri.Prabhu, Aged about 28 years.

2. Sri.H.V(3nkatesh, S/0.Sr:1.:?ré;bh-LI;§:.; " ' .

Aged about v2,6..Vye:.»1rs._ -

Both age i"esid1.ngV " b "

4441 anC1.444;2/_1,1_ ' Tejmple Sf;re-':=:A1j.g' V ' E3f.'E%.E3fi0h..3~11a, MMMMM M « % «%.i§/13m}-is 5 5.70 019. .,,Appe11anis S1':i,_ 'Adv. :3 for Sm,K.f%§'.Na:j*3;Si%:;:E:21i1gEadxsﬂ} r '%1.'I§_:

. _Séﬁf_«v§€amaEing;e Syamycﬁa, _ 7S,'<},K€1':gs: €r0wd8;, Aggﬁ abauﬁz: 54 }'€3E1i"S§ (C) (6) R / at. H11 11 akere Village, K'0ttat.'i.i Hobli, Mandya Taiuk, Mandya }I)is't:r'ict ~ 571 481.

S1'i.Kenge Gowda, Since dead, mpresentzeci by L-Rs.

Srnt.Ningamma_.

W/0.Keng;e G0wcia.S. Major.

Sriﬁagarajtz, W/o.Ke11ge Gowda, Major.

Sri.Rama1i'ng;€ Gawda, 8/ olienge Gowda, Major. V Sri.JVziyam1ffga, f:.; " _ -

D / o2.Ke1f2 ge C.='Qw(:ia,, I\/I:a_}'0i'..' ' 2 Sri .Nagréc*.;h_I1amma-V, "~-- ' {)5 0; K613 ge Ggwdag V" 'I ..... ..

?LE2§;"ei'*2f1='5 :eSpc>I1d€nt: are ._ E?+_;50wVL'32§;'§s.2§'r;1g:;tppe 'v'"§.1}ag£~3, '2\ } '.'3andaV3.pV;::"a1 Taizgk.

E\f1'z111<.j§ya"E)§;Strict, - 3?} 40}. i'=x§;'._:;s.{}V;S1.;k:.1:;:21r21n & Aggtsa Fox' E3; if:

«--.{E'<:-~;:*;V{;f:} 22:} R~f?; {3} S:§§i§"i?'€€§ ii 'Ei;:E§'£:E'p§'€:S€E}€,f$%{§§ 9;<=§4=%#=%$$ 'N ,..Resp0r1dez:£s This R.S.A. is ﬂied under section 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 14.07.2005 passed in R.A.N<3.35/1990 on the file: 0f the £11 Add1.}j)i.str1'<:t 8: Séssions Judge, Mysore, dismissing the appeal and confi:*ﬁ"1--iif1'§§.'ths judgement and decree dated 30.11.1981_.--3V_:'ij'asVsj§:--£i'

0.s.No.140/7'9 on the me gr the P:r1.CiVi_]_....,34~g~dg;é.::{Sr.D'11}.V Myssre.

This R.S.A. coming on far'-._finai ' Court. made the foliowing: » D G 1' ,7.

This is plaintiff' s apfseaés ag3§;iﬁst.""th€ C:.0ncurre31'1t findisg of fact ar1C1"'s}s3§%j5;V cf3:ii;aseq'LJ:ént iEO"""W"hiCh her suit has been dismisse(:}j*.A '

2. V. the VA<;{513f}iér:ti0r1s urged by the learned v.«-'{'EQL1HSfEi'3'«:fQ1_'ﬁWi}QT.h f;h'e...s:des and nlaierial avaiiabis an record;

file i"7%)1'§:::axm":f}; sf ,man1f<--:st: s S::';si;.'._Ch0wdam{;1a fileii a suit: against Ramaimgs °'-«.V_.a{}<;fs:Cia 21:r;{§;_ Eiszage G<::w::§s s&%sk§'n§: .22 d«s{%rs::%€: is gii-iziiczrs iiéﬁs .._a:s§sp::::si"; éesd dsfsisé 8..'§..E§'E'8 as vsidk, iiisgeﬂ and 110i binding ; v

-._x' J;

on her. She also sought far 8. further de(:13.rat.ion that the first defendant", c:an:ra0t. be ctenstrued as her adopted son.

3. The defendants entered appearance, contested and resisted the suit through detailed wriiten staféinent, which gave rise to the following issues fer c<3n_s;'i'(1'<:fzf;e1?{,iOé1___4t3.},I the Trial Courtr

1. Whether the piaizlajf aﬁgri heezéf. j:.:~;':;«s2:;;:r:«;i' 1-VT .' Lsalidly adopted H.Rqr:_r1ar1riaAi%*a._.1 94 " "

2. Whether the plair1:§['f"VA:x§ﬁ:*a;)es--' {lie 2??"

defendant: obt'§ti:1ed_«"i?1e aeioﬁﬁiorx deedﬂvdated {hat the I-9!' defendant' has nei'f§eef1»eI)d§.£d'iu'ado ted in her'? A _ H ._ 13 J 2.1;. _v Y/S/iiefgfjeerwvfdefefizfients prove that the T13-*3 I__}fZefencidI1£..____,§1;1S been vaiidlg adopted by p2a:%*:~:::7?

'V ii7f;e£{§:er éfze Sui: as breugfzi by piairééggff is H03"

%t%:::iTr*a{cair1aE3Eei9 AA E/iihezfzer {Re 555:: is Emrreﬁ 52;; §irr:i§'.a§.ie:":"? $.31 Whether the ad<:»p£'i.on deed is liable to be sef czside?

6. What order?

Addl. Issues

1. Whether dejkzndant No. :

adoption Qf' persons age>&_1'«-.._§;z§3oz§€v. 21.-5 H:fs--3 perrnitwd by custom or usEig é qppliCaifV):Ze" i;oV}ii1.e parties'?

4, The the lzsarned Trial Judge sought for by the plaintiff ca1jiIiﬁit'x§}f;':é;"I§§21r'red by time. Such .21 decision wz7t §».&t,$1.1.'s;<3i1 Court' applyixgg Article 5'? of the Limit3ati(>i§ _'AsAsaiV1'ii1g it the plaintiff' was; in appeal }:J<5i'k:r€3 52';;ppe£§at:e HCG*L:'f1E. I'<=:if.<-wating the same piasag wllich giid' 'rj:C}'"i; _fif:1ri"'fz Vx>?r9§:;:.1_*"_';;:.r1d: U16 ezppeaﬂ 'WEIS di$n1is$ed. Agziiizst Sziid»._{jf{}31€§l'§1ff§:§'§§ findizlg; {his ss<--:c{}n{i appeai is»; fﬁzsd. 'E'§-"gé §.%;E§§:2.-iing ::;::s:=,s%;é<>:1 5}? 2222*; aris%€:$ §?::~r :11}?

":":é;s::..9.§;<i1€*1";:{§0:1 in this S€{'YOE1d appeaE:-- 6 Whether the Courts below were crarract. in I1€gati.ng and dismissing the suit"; having rewarded 21 finding of fact in fervour of the p1a.in.tiff~m appeilant that the adoption deed daiiad 8.1.1976 is void and right in dismissing the suit'-"Uh the question of lﬁnine'?

6. Heard Sri.Nitish, iearned ctounﬁél appellants and Sri.G.Sukumaran, fi<H3}é1fr1E=d'-«hcgunhsei _f0i"' {Z116 7 respo11dents.

7. In his endeavour to {.116 sdgzght for iri the plainivg"Smhﬁish::fiw0ii1.ﬁI'---fead"'Gui to me deed of adoption dated 8.11;"-1&9"?:6,' mm)' of which was highiighted to Show that it adoption simpiicitor, but it is 21 "Steed g§j_""«:.t,;;»_g;,;1:3.f7c--:r 0fV'i1*1--"m:1<)\rabi<5 pr0pe1"'{,y, He would furthea"

<?:'01_1E;'s~tnCi' _tha.fj 'rh;2j'2:{;E0pt,i011 was also invaiiid in law as the firgt. ' def6§1e:i__:.{nt. \$4fS;.1'S5':-v§cI'§:)(}V{3 'ihe of E5 y&3a.r$ as an 8,3 19"2"5: He

-. .T'_:'~..«.."s_$<:»:,1i(i {.b33.:fi'i-réjtaci 11:} me: {he 'r@c::i'{.ai emf the deaézzmemt in Show ' 4-."éEé--::2,:,'.i;%:p: 3§°{t?@E{§S ?é..E";:% :»'-;»€_=aa7:<:»:":<i £§e§:"e:§":{ie1:1i: haé iemii szmze EIEEEEEE}? is jyiaémziff {:0 be repaid with §ni:er<:~s%.. She: Wag u:n.abE€ '£9 7 repay the same, but had Lm<:1ert:ake.n to dis(:harge the iiabiiity in eouree of time. The second de'f'endam'. posed two conditions, one was she should exeeutie certain ci0Lt:;§.;_I1er':t:e« evidencing the transaei.i0n of loan between seeondiy, since ehe 0011161 not discharge the loan; ' take his son in adoption. Gm tihat heeu"b§er£1tete€E_'_iihézft the deed described adoption deed recognizable in law.

8. The; defendants,,- en ihe'i1"--.. whiie' 'e0needing to the fae,t that there was a "ef"'d,ated 8.1.1978, contended iflxat it V\7vvé1s'=VAé;I.i_c1' "ir_1 '1-aw "based on the custom in the e0mmun1'ty. H1.4_€)th€I4' ?v'(i1:TC1E3.,'a{}V€f()O1{I1i.I1g the iaw requirmg the age 1im.:itfe:' 2eiop'{:ie1<:.,_he gmbmits that iheugh he W213 21 year aid? ae"pe1' ighe Lépistonz in the C{)1'I1I11'L1Z'1§J;'j,?, a<iiept,ie;1 was vaiid. iii. 21:/% Azhzieie hie{'."%;:eA:?1€,e:2iion that, the deceased piaixziiifi an her ewiz V<)Eiif.i<}:£'.,effereci ta} taiie {he firs? defendzmi; in a€iepf.i«:>:1 C As'::e._ba<§ §2<}ne E53 $i.iE""J§%-"€i %::':3:1 She &}.E5?:{§ 21f'§'iz'mé;:{E iie ehe tjifélf. upen her {ieat'.§'1. the eiefendaim N13,} weuiiig be E.E::<--:

';'*»«:--~..

8 i<r:g21t:e<-3 of her pmp€I*t:iess. 'I'h(~:~ ieramed Trial Judgge has piaced the bllfdﬁll on the parties based on the Inater"ia1 pr0p<}siiioI1 in the p1eading.s. As the dc-sfendani:-s had been c:<)r1tenVcf1€.»rj}ri:1f;21t the <:Eeft3.I1d211'1t No.1 was vaiidiy adopted and . fraudulemi one, bur<:1ex1 was piaced on iqglnx. 9, The parties Eead evidezmai, b23.--Sé3C1 'Q'H. i;11_s:3 learned Trfiai Judge has held t.h:'it.'«%.he 31"

8.1.1976 was not an acioption de¢ CV{-.in--1_;a.W. .'E%€ferrj}91g to the 3"ec1'tIa} of the documents-,. i;h'c I{<:'3.rfi:':%jdx"'1Tria1_ Judge has concluded that it spazils outtra:f19a:c1f£Qz1 iva§3".'i0an t1-ansaction and it xvaég iI1"{€'-'f}Ci\1":d"v..f[4V(}. Cr(;:éit.£: -21-' cha:rge on the immovable propeny e1'nci'=.t4hGreforé;. 1.tftsiiinoi; be ar::c:epte3d .218 dead 01f"

3,;iopt:i<3r;; 'EzE.hasa~ 'ifa;«A.__Vb;<-3 c:0:j1sid€:red ass agr€emeni:. betweeii fhfi pa1_r*'£ie:~s._fi3.*:"sf;.1y_11,:;g'Sesctare the loan and secondly £0 'iramsfksr of me bagia i;E":<3: "E'1"iai Jascigge heiii me: deed Coruid I":{§€', bé Aﬁfiféféiﬁdw 1.0. it woulacl be ciesirabie to ext.rz1c't. the reasoning ef the Tria} Judge regarding ilature 0? the doeuzazent. It is para 1 I of the judgment which reads thuszw "11. During the course of the arguments__j%he ieéu<*r7§e:i« Cmmsels appearing for the defendants; have aigéo ﬁG!'VﬁVdiSe%.}f:1ed V EX.P.2 and infact. they reiied upon the piainijff had knowledge of» or"?

EX.iP.1 because Ex.P.1 is the of 'EX.--.D..-12 and the suit brought: by the p1e1im:4ii:f_1iS Hence, the admitted d0cL1n1e:1i:f: Ex.P.§;2AVV' eéieblished the fact that on a<::<:01,_mf. 'c;fV--AI§ieneta;i'3r__ transacﬁions and by way of secuzrity for fl4}V1":3' m0;iey""b'or1fﬁGwed fmm the plaintiff, the deed £}x..f).1 w_;§ié taker; 2*" defe:1dar:t; from the piairmff. The 'fact, 1, d0 not represent the adoption re<:t:i.fied in the d0<:é:i1~":ie;.?}.i': &'Vi.E:'§€_}3'_'»-{_?&'a;;Ev;.1 'Sf*3 gathered from E0{>ki:1g tie me co:1€e'nts ef--Elx,Ie}:EA 'zEi}: .D.§ is; 3:»Ln'e'i}2' am 21{ieptioi1 deeai %:.here was TIE} __&::%§;.e::5:;s2::'§Ey fa} =m"ii.e am gehedzzie {i§es§<:':*§b£§1g {he E1<:}L:s:§e. is the piaintiff in the $Ch€&L1i€§ grad fur*'t.he::, the .-"\._ 3"':

/' 10 sig1121i.ure5 of H.Ramarma and H.Prabh_s.:: is c:011s€nt;i11g parties Coulci 1101". hzzve been obt,aiI1e<:i."

I1. T116 ultiimate <:0n<:1usio'n of the Trial Coagrt.' docunlent EX.P.2 alleged to be the adoption deed v_A¥§~::=:»:gs534:1:-;1aT'13y~.. u ' a d0c:um<:?nt evidencing the monetary]tr21n.sa§:tigIi .beai'\lm?;e:1 partices and was; acctepted setétamty fd1' Ehe m<i?:.r};e'y"boa-r§)Wed_"'L. has not been questiorled by éhé-2 ;:ppea1 or so. That: finding has. .,ﬁfi:'I2;}Eity. H Iéaut, as far as ultimate result ofthe learned Triai Ju C1 ge has 1_efC1frCs€14 OE£%1{é Litﬁit21ti011 Act to hold that t.1'1<-3 Sifif. xx.-jag Vb'-a;1f:=¢tiVMby .Same finding is recorded by ' the Appellate' Czcuzfi, V' 1_2;._{ 'L:e3arI1e€£"£:£:>unsV-31 for the petiti(3n€r SrivNit,ish i:}:i.:3d €£<:V_<?0aié=;s>;:;i _V{1':;;1': §s:rii§:£€ 58 WEE} rmig béz zzppiicaabieg bu": Ariéezéie _ 59 1% '£3, .. 5';;~§ji.i<:=3€ 58 aiééziiss ":2<:§.%,."§':. s§uii:s~:: is <:7bE..2:iz1: any {}§,:T.3€Ti"' {i€€3§€i,?;1E.i{§E1 whiéih are 118:', :":m-reired E)§§1{§%31"' Ariideg $6 arid 5?' cf x /' 1.1 the Lim1'.t,a.i:i<m Act, the period is three years when the right to sue first accrrues, whereas Artieie 60 deals with a cﬁffererat;

-situai;io::'1_. It reiates to Su:it.s filed {to setwaside 3, transfer of immovable property made by the g'L1a.rdi:;ua of a ward or by the ward who has; attained majority or by the We1zd'9s'-.4'e_le§__{ai representative or when the ward dies Vifithiﬂ ':hre'e__'yearse'ff0:3§ "

the date of aftaizaing nmjority or vah§:':imt'rxe "VVf.l1"(;}1 Vbefiare. attaining ma_3'ority', the period i.sVt11ree'._yea_rs 'th_e attains majority or when the xveifdfd-..ies. 'Firstly, the Psrticie wili not be appiieabie beeaaijae bgéilie ward or on behalf ():f f;E(f'K2§fé11'C€V::;:Vf has adapted the first defendant The d0cu'mem'. is daied 8.1.1.976. The'-suit' ggear 1.979 It: is 2% menths bejmnd pe,ri'<3de, 'Of "thf*e2ez'ye21:"s p1'€SC3?ib€:d in Artieie 58. 'L2§1do:;biie{E1y beyimd the pe:s"i»:>e:i {if 1§mi*£:a"é.i0n, u§1ﬁ:z::I: ---péezintiff ssee'k:i11g :0 2-mm}: the e?.<}eL2meni wh§eh.sZ3.§:3 h22£5:"_'»é:X<::§::€eci. Even {}§.§'1€f1'"'~.-"-a'§E§»{:',3 if. has {.9 be S€§3§L "by {.Eee:*i""<:.>iT 2:'{§:;§:«*£i'ie:':, iéiere i'.Tf2':}'E %3e EH} 'i;::°a:1$§e:' ef §}2"e}::em'.3; }?[:as;E3ee1': {Esme £2: me case it"; q':1esfi¢::en. Ex.§}.2 makes ii. eiear 'X ."/ ' 7 /.;«\,-"~%:».

._\',/ .12 that the parties have refe-rre.d to severe} monetary 1:.ransaC€.i0r1s ané adoption is an incridenial mention in the deed. When read it makes it clear that it is not .21 deed of adoptien simplieitor which finding the 'I'ria1 Court; ha3V-ﬂghtly recorded. It has not been q_uestioned by the thereiezre, has reached finality. Thus the reﬁef the pIa.1'nt.iff was answered by the Ti'ié11 (1Qurt".~:an:d'.e;2;:he is binding on 'the parties. Since the suit4'vx2v§;ie fi1eCEb',§;;"f3jfer1d years from the date of execut,i03'1"=Qf"the dC>e'*;,1i11e'r1t',7_the Trial Couxft has rightly heki 'the by 7iAir_ﬁiiation. 1 do not findveziﬁy --A::e':;s0Iui7:€e'i3 i'f;.te'r'fe1"e'"with the eoncurrenﬁ: finding recorded the' The question of law is a1'2swered_ aga}1ﬁst"the--_ f33_ei1§fiff ~appe1lan.t and the second :_e;1:)'pea§ Lss"'di:e.n1iesed. H **** aéim

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court