IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Proof of Will – Mere registration of Will does not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of legal mandate.
(2) Adoption – Mere registration of Adoption Deed did not absolve person asserting such adoption from proving that fact by cogent evidence and person contesting it from adducing evidence to the contrary – Even though datta homam is no longer considered an essential ceremony, it is of significance when performed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Moturu Nalini Kanth, then a minor, claimed absolute right and title over the properties of late Venkubayamma under registered Will Deed dated 03.05.1982. It was also claimed that he was adopted by her, as evidenced by registered Adoption Deed dated 20.04.1982. Nalini Kanth was not even a year old at that time, as he was born on 10.07.1981. O.S. No. 113 of 1983 was filed by Nalini Kanth, through his guardian, for declaratory and consequential reliefs in respect of Venkubayamma’s properties. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, held in his favour, vide judgment dated 30.09.1989, and decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held against Nalini Kanth, vide judgment dated 11.12.2006, and allowed Appeal Suit No. 2695 of 1989 filed by Gainedi Kaliprasad, Venkubayamma’s grandson through her deceased daughter, Varalaxmi. Hence, this appeal by Nalini Kanth.

2. Nalini Kanth’s prayer in O.S. No. 113 of 1983 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, filed through his guardian, was for declaration of his title to the suit properties that had belonged to Venkubayamma and for recovery of their possession from Kaliprasad, defendant No. 1. His case was that he was adopted by Venkubayamma on 18.04.1982 at Sri Sri Raghunadha Swamy Temple at Bhapur in Berhampur City, Ganjam District, Orissa (presently, Odisha). It was claimed that the Adoption Deed (Ex.A9) was executed on 20.04.1982 and it was registered on the same day. It was signed by his natural parents who gave him in adoption and also by his adoptive mother. Thereafter, Venkubayamma executed registered Will Deed dated 03.05.1982 (Ex.A10) in a sound state of mind bequeathing all her properties to him. Thereby, Venkubayamma also canceled her earlier Will Deed dated 26.05.1981 (Ex.A19), executed in favour of Kaliprasad, her grandson. Under Ex.A10 Will, Venkubayamma appointed Pasupuleti Anasuya (PW-1) as the executor of the Will and also as the guardian of Nalini Kanth, in the event she died during his minority. In fact, Venkubayamma died just two months later, on 26.07.1982. Defendants No. 2 to 12 in the suit were Venkubayamma’s tenants. As disputes arose between Pasupuleti Anasuya, Nalini Kanth’s guardian, and Kaliprasad as to who was entitled to receive the rents, the suit in O.S. No. 113 of 1983 came to be filed by her on his behalf.

3. The suit was contested by Kaliprasad. He challenged the Adoption Deed as well as the Will Deed, under which Nalini Kanth claimed rights. He alleged that Venkubayamma was a resident of Srikakulam and was very old in 1982. According to him, she was senile and was not in a position to exercise free will and consciousness. He asserted that the adoption was not true, valid or binding on him. He contended that Ex.A10 Will was invalid as it was not properly attested. He claimed that Venkubayamma had brought him up and got his marriage performed and that she had always treated him as her sole heir and successor.

4. The Trial Court settled the following issues for consideration:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Venkubayamma and the Adoption Deed dated 19.04.1982 (sic) is true?

2. Whether the registered Will dated 03.05.1982 executed by late Venkubayamma is true and valid?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit properties?

4. To what relief?”

5. PWs. 1 to 15 were examined for the plaintiff, Nalini Kanth, by his guardian. Ex.A1 to A25 were marked on his behalf. Kaliprasad examined himself as DW-1. He also examined DWs 2 and 3 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Exs.C1 & C2 and Exs.X1 & X2 were also made part of the record. Ex C1 is the affidavit dated 16.09.1982 of Balaga Sivanarayana Rao, stating that he had scribed Ex.A10 Will Deed. It was attested by B. Prasada Rao, Advocate. Ex.C2 is stated to be the affidavit dated 16.09.1982 of Pydi Appala Suranna, an attesting witness to Ex.A10 Will Deed. It was attested by K.V. Ramanayya, Advoc