L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this Second Appeal, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 19-9-1989 in A. S. No. 66 of 1983 reversing that of the trial Court dated 26-3-1983 in os. No. 504 of 1980 are in challenge. The plaintiff is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for partition. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of late Rayaprolu Chalapathi. It was the case of the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant by name Rayaprolu Rama Krishna Sharma was given in adoption to one Rayaprolu China krishna Murthy. The joint family comprising of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 owned a house bearing Door no. 10-3-48 in Nageshwara Rao Street. Ramaraopet, Kakinada. According to the appellant, the 3rd defendant was not entitled to any share in the partition since he was given in adoption. The 3rd defendant contested the suit. He disputed the alleged adoption and claimed a share in the schedule property along with his other brothers who figured as plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.

( 3 ) NECESSARY issues were framed by thetrial Court. On behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. l and 2 were examined and on behalf of the defendants, D. Ws. l and 2 were examined. Documents Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked by the plaintiff and document Ex. B-1 was marked by the defendants. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit and through judgment dated 23-6-1983 passed a preliminary decree directing the suit schedule property to be divided into three shares and the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 be allotted one share each.

( 4 ) THE 3rd defendant, who is the 1strespondent herein, filed A. S. No. 66/83 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. The lower appellate court, through its judgment dated 19-7-1989, reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of adoption of the 3rd defendant and held that he is also entitled for his share along with the other brothers. Hence, this Second appeal by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) MS. Rama, appearing forsri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, submits that the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the findings of the trial Court on the question of adoption of the 3rd defendant cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. It is her contention that the plaintiff herein had placed sufficient evidence before the trial Court to prove that the 3rd defendant was given in adoption. According to her, the admissions of the 3rd defendant as D. W. 2 and the document ex. A-4 are sufficient to prove the said fact. She further submits that the interpretation placed by the lower appellate Court on section 12 (c) cannot be sustained in law.

( 6 ) SRI A. C. Bose, appearing forsri C. Poornaiah, the learned counsel for the 3rd defendant/1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the burden to prove that the 3rd defendant was given in adoption was heavily upon the plaintiff and he did not discharge the same. According to him, the requisite ceremonies, which are needed for a valid adoption, were not proved to have been performed. It is his case that the 3rd defendant was only fostered son of sri China Krishna Murthy and the same cannot be treated as adoption. He finally submits that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are on the basis of evidence on record and decided cases and the same cannot be disturbed.

( 7 ) THE only question that needs to beexamined is whether the 3rd defendant/1st respondent was given in adoption to China krishna Murthy. Inasmuch as the lower appellate Court placed its interpretation on section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), that aspect also needs to be considered.

( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the parties tothe suit are brothers. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant was given in adoption. The said adoption

Click Here to Read the rest of this document