A person who seeks to displace succession of property alleging adoption must discharge burden lies upon him by proof of factum of adoption and its validity.

A.S.No.267 of 1995

1) The 1st defendant-Kakarla Rosenna among 3 plaintiffs including Narayanamma and Ch.Narayana filed this appeal against the four plaintiffs T.Narasappa, Ch.Narayana Swamy, Ch.Narasimhulu and Ch.Rajendra, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 23.01.1995 in O.S. No.102 of 1985 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur.

C.R.P.No.998 of 2002

1(a) Said 1st defendant in O.S.No.102 of 1985 (being the appellant in A.S. No.267 of 1995) filed this revision aggrieved by the order in final decree petition against him in I.A. No.467 of 1998 in O.S. No.102 of 1985 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur.

2) Pending appeal the appellant-1st defendant of the suit Rosanna died and his L.Rs brought on record as appellants 2 to 4 by name Rangayya, Ananda Kumar and Vijaya Lakshmi as per orders in A.S.M.P. No.153, dated 18.06.2012 and the plaintiff T.Narsappa who was 1st respondent to the appeal also died and his L.Rs brought on record as respondents 7 to 11 by name Narsappa, Ranganna, Jayanarasimhulu @ Jayanna, Pullamma and Narayanamma as per orders in C.M.P.No.22508 of 1998 dated 18.08.1999. Said persons also brought on record during pendency of the final decree petition in I.A. No.467 of 1998 (impugned in the revision) i.e., the 1st plaintiff T.Narsappa’s L.Rs as petitioners 5 to 7 viz., Narayana, Rangappa and Jayanarasimhulu vide orders in I.A. No.273 of 2000 dated 28.08.2000 and also C.Narasimhulu and Pullamma as respondents 4 and 5 vide orders in I.A. No.72 of 1999 dated 08.03.1999.

3) Since both the matters are interrelated and come out of one and the same dispute between the parties, both matters are clubbed together and the parties are being referred to as were arrayed before the trial Court in the original suit for the sake of convenience.

4) The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 4 seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ 5/8th share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits for three years prior to suit and thereafter till the date of possession of their share against the 1st defendant.

The brief averments in the plaintiffs’ case are as follows :

4(a) The schedule mentioned property originally belongs to Balappa, who got married Mangamma, had one son (Chandrappa) and two daughters (Pullamma and Narayanamma). Balappa died in or around 1920 and after 8 years his son Chandrappa died unmarried and the schedule mentioned properties devolved on widow Mangamma, who also died subsequently. Consequent upon the death of Mangamma, her daughter, sole heir, Narayanamma was the absolute owner of the property as the other daughter Pullamma also died during the life time of Mangamma.

(b) Narayanamma, sole heir of Balappa, entered into possession of the properties. On 15.06.1959 said Narayanamma executed a gift (Ex.A-7) of half share in favour of Aswarthappa (father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 & 2nd defendant) and defendants 1 & 3 jointly to be enjoyed by the three branches. The other half share in the schedule mentioned property, Narayanamma, gifted in favour of the 1st plaintiff reserving her right to enjoy the same during her life time with limited interest under the gift deed dated 13.04.1973(Ex.A-1). Narayanamma also executed a lease deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff permitting him to cultivate the lands. Subsequently Narayanamma also died. Consequent to the death of Narayanamma, 1st plaintiff became entitled to half share, plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 2nd defendant together are entitled 1/6th share and defendants 1 and 3 each became entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule properties.

(c) When disputes arose between the parties, during the life time of Narayanamma, the 1st plaintiff and Narayanamma, filed a suit in O.S. No.274 of 1973 (Ex.B-15-plaint) on the file of District Munsif, Gooty for permanent injunction against 1st defendant and others from interfering with their possession and enjoyment and the same was dismissed, vide its Judgment dat