Karnataka High Court
David S/O Taimoty vs Smt. Parimala W/O David on 23 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RSA NO.7055/2012 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
DAVID S/O TAIMOTY
AGE: 54 YEARS
OCC: SUPTD. METHODIST CHURCH
BOYS HOSTEL, KN. NH BIDAR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARIMALA W/O DAVID
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: LECTURER IN N.F. COMPOSITE
JUNIOR COLLEGE, BIDAR
2. ASHIS S/O VIDYANAND
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R/O NEW BETHLEHEM COLONY
GUEST HOUSE ROAD, BIDAR
3. SMT. KOMALA W/O VIDHYANAND
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC: ASST. TEACHER
AT DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
CHIDRI, TQ. & DIST. BIDAR
2
4. VIDHYANAND S/O P.K. KRISHNASWAMY
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: STENOGRAPHER IN DIST. INDUSTRIES CENTRE AT
OSMANABAD (M.S.)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED;
V/O DT. 17.10.2016, APPEAL AGAINST R2 TO R4
DISMISSED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.10.2011 IN R.A.
NO.104/2010 IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT-I AT BIDAR (R.A.NO.30/2009 ON THE
FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE SR DN AT BIDAR) AND BE FURTHER
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 26.06.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JD) BIDAR IN OS NO.69/2006
AND THE SUIT MAY KINDLY BE DECREED AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff No.2, who has questioned concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the 3 plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of declaration that defendant No.1 is not the adopted son of plaintiffs' is dismissed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs have filed present suit in O.S.No.69/2006 seeking declaration that defendant No.1 is not their adopted son. The plaintiffs contended that they are Christian and therefore, there is no custom in the family of plaintiffs and defendants to take a child in adoption. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant No.1 by asserting that he is the adopted son is abusing and harassing the plaintiffs. Therefore, the present suit.
4. Defendant No.2, who is sister of plaintiff No.1 filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 4 claimed that the plaintiffs themselves have approached defendant Nos.2 and 3 and insisted to give defendant No.1 in adoption who was aged about 2 years and on their request, a formal ceremony of giving and taking was performed and defendant No.1 was taken in adoption and thereafter, a registered adoption deed came to be executed on 04.03.1988. Defendant No.2 also contended that factum of adoption is acted upon and defendant No.1 is referred as son of David-plaintiff No.2. On these set of defence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The plaintiffs and defendants have led oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. The trial Court referring to the evidence on record was not inclined to grant any relief to the plaintiffs. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Vasanti & Others vs. Pharez 5 John Ibrahim and Others1 held that Indian Succession Act does not prohibit a non-Christian who is related by blood and further held that there is no bar for Christian couple to take adoption. Placing reliance on the said judgment, the trial Court was of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration. The trial Court held that the adoption deed binds the adopted parents and genetic parents and therefore, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of declaration as sought in the plaint. Consequently, dismissed the suit and is confirmed by the appellate Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
7. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the factum of adoption is proved. Both the 1 ILR 2007 KAR. 2375 6 Courts have taken cognizance of oral evidence of P.W.1, who has admitted that on the date of adoption, P.W.1 along with plaintiff No.2 has visited sub- Registrar office. P.W.1 has further admitted that D.W.2 and D.W.3 were also present and they signed the document. The explanation offered by the plaintiffs that they have hurriedly signed the document and they had no occasion to read the contents of the document was not accepted by both the Courts. Both the Courts placing reliance on the principles laid down in the above cited judgment have held that there is no law prohibiting the Christian couple from adopting a child. This view taken by both the Courts is supported by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pharez John Abraham (dead) by legal representatives Vs. Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam K. and others 2. The Apex Court 2 (2020) 13 SCC 711 7 in the judgment cited supra has clearly held that there is no law prohibiting Christian couple to adopt female child. The Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has held that adoption is permissible among Christians and Christian couple can take male or female child even if they already have natural born male or female child. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are found to be in accordance with law. I do not find any infirmities in the judgment and decree of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP