Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Sanagavarapu Venkata Subbaiah Sarma vs Karuthota Galib Saheb And Ors. on 11 April, 1997

Y.Srinivasa Rao vs Y.Gopala Krishna Prasad 3 Ors on 7 June, 2018

It is an admitted case that there is no formal deed of adoption and that the first plaintiff on whom the burden lies has to prove the adoption that he has pleaded. He stated that the 'ceremony of adoption' took place on 27.02.1978 in the presence of relatives (para-4 of the plaint). To prove the adoption, the first plaintiff filed Ex.A.1-lagna patrika and Ex.A.2- invitation card and also stated that pursuant to the said adoption, he took possession of the property and that the cist receipts which are filed clearly show that he is the adopted son of late Lakshmi Tayaramma. Therefore, it is his contention that even if there is no need of formal deed of adoption; a valid adoption was proved by establishing the factum of giving the child and taking the child through oral 4 evidence. He relied upon S.V. Subbaiah Sarma v. K. Galib Saheb1 and argued that the oral evidence on record is enough to prove the adoption. He states that the evidence of PWs.2 to 6 apart from his oral evidence establishes the adoption.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Narayanapa, vs B.Aswarthamma, on 20 June, 2018

So as to apply the same analogy to a Will executed by a coparcener, he relies in Sangavarapu Venkata Subbaiah Sarma v. Karuthota Galib Saheb14 where it was observed that a coparcener can Gift or Will away coparcenary property to the extent of his share and execution of settlement deed in respect of specific item of property by a coparcener or execution of a Will by him bequeathing the entire property is not valid, and until coparcenary property is divided by metes and bounds, no coparcener can alienate any specific item of property.
Telangana High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reddy Subbarao (Died) Per L.Rs. vs Nunne Venkataramanna And Ors. on 5 January, 2007

Relying on Pasam Thirupathamma v. Pasam Venkatareddi 1985 (2) An.W. R. 22, where it is held, when evidence of giving and taking the boy in adoption and actually handing over becomes weak due to long lapse of time or due to the demise of the natural and adoptive parents and persons present at the time of adoption or conducting ceremonies of adoption, the conduct of the parties has to be looked into, and contended that in the circumstances of the case consent of the first defendant for adoption of the plaintiff can be implied and relied on S.V. Subbaiah Sarma v. K. Galib Saheb in support of his contention that if oral evidence establishes the factum of giving away and taking in of the child in adoption, the fact that the deed of adoption was signed only by the adoptive father but not the adoptive mother also, is not of any consequence, and since the evidence on record shows that the first defendant participated in the ceremony of adoption, there was no need or necessity for the plaintiff seeking a declaration of his status as the adopted son of the first defendant and her husband, and contended that the failure of the plaintiff to go into the witness box is of no consequence in this case, because, he admittedly was a small boy at the time of his adoption, and so he cannot be expected to have knowledge of the ceremonies that had taken place at the time of his adoption, and as his knowledge thereof can only be through hearsay, and the fact that the father-in-law of the plaintiff, who is looking after the affairs of the plaintiff, was not examined as a witness is also not of any consequence, because he also does not have personal knowledge about the adoption of the plaintiff and contended that the natural parents of the plaintiff not joining in the execution of Ex. B-1, in the circumstances of the case, is not of any consequence. It is his contention that as the first defendant did not possess any property of her own, the entire plaint A schedule property should be deemed to be the property of the joint family of the plaintiff and the first defendant and so the finding of the trial Court that the properties covered by Exs.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1