The admission of adoption by a co-defendant is binding on the other co-defendant only if there is a common interest and not merely because of their status as parties in the proceedings.

Headnote:
PARTITION SUIT - ADOPTION - ADMISSION OF ADOPTION BY CO-DEFENDANT - BINDING EFFECT - CONDITIONS - MARRIAGE - VALIDITY - DETERMINATION WITHOUT PLEA OR ISSUE - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of his alleged share in the plaint schedule properties. The first defendant resisted the suit, whereas the second defendant conceded for a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased, which was denied by the first defendant. The second defendant admitted the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of the deceased, that the plaint schedule A properties were self-acquired properties of the deceased, and that there were no properties available for partition.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish his adoption to the deceased and that the plaint schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of the deceased. However, the Court also held that the second defendant was the legally wedded second wife of the deceased, despite the Hindu Marriage Act coming into force, and that she was entitled to a share in the suit properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of the first defendant and Vulse Venkati? 2. Whether the suit schedule A properties are the self-acquired properties of the deceased Vulse Venkati? 3. What are the properties available for partition? 4. To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The admission of adoption by a co-defendant is binding on the other co-defendant only if there is a common interest and not merely because of their status as parties in the proceedings. 2. The validity of a marriage cannot be determined without a specific plea, issue, and opportunities for the parties to adduce evidence and address arguments. 3. In a suit for partition, the court has the discretion to transpose any defendant as a plaintiff and grant relief even if the plaintiffs have been found not entitled to any share.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed in regard to the dismissal of the suit in so far as the plaintiff was concerned. However, the judgment and decree were set aside in so far as the rights of the defendants were concerned. The suit was decreed to the effect declaring that defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to half share each in the suit schedule properties and that they are entitled to get them separated by metes and bounds by paying necessary Court fees.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a Plaintiff's appeal. His suit O.S. No. 126/77 was dismissed with costs on 7-8-1981 by the learned sub-Judge (Sri Vaman Rao), Karimnagar. The suit was filed for partition and possession of ?rd share in plaint A schedule properties and ?rd share in plaint B schedule properties. Plaint A schedule is — a tiled house bearing Municipal No. 2-10-68/C together with vacant site appurtenant thereto situate in Jyothinagar, Karimnagar; and an amount of Rs. 4,890-30 standing in the account No. 103699 of deceased Vulse Venkati s/o Venkatrajyam in the Head Post Office, Karimnagar and some other immovable items. Plaint B schedule is an amount of Rs. 7,500-00 payable to the legal heirs of deceased Vulse Venkati s/o Venkatrajyam in the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapalli, Karimnagar district. The first defendant resisted the suit whereas the second defendant conceded for a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff.

2. One late Vulse Venkati and Vulse Venkati (P.W. 2) are uterine brothers. The plaintiff (P.W. 1) and one Tirupathi are the sons of P.W. 2. Defendant No. 1 (D.W. 1) is the wife of Vulse Venkati. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 (D.W. 2) lived with the deceased till he died. Vulse Venkati died intestate. P.W. 2 and the deceased were the natives of Venkataraopet. The deceased became a Peon and worked in Agricultural department till he died. P.W. 2 is a Peon in Government Social Welfare Hostel. P.W. 2 went away as illatom son-in-law to a family of Poddur village and lost interest in his natural father's family and its property if any. Sunkd Venkati (P.W. 4) is the husband of sister of P.W. 2 and the deceased. P.W. 5 (another Vulse Venkati) is their close relative (uncle's son). One Gunde Buchamma is their maternal aunt. She was a native doctor. The plaintiff has studied up to Intermediate at Sircilla (failed in 1977 and discontinued his studies). The family of P.W. 2 and the deceased belong to backward class (Munnuru Kapu). D.W. 2 (Bathula Rajaiah) is the younger brother's son of P.W. 2 and he is married to the daughter of elder sister of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is the elder sister of D.W. 3 (Ragam Narsaiah). Defendant No. 2 (D.W. 4) is a congenital blind person. The deceased was working in Peddapalle when he died. He was cremated in Karimnagar where P.W. 2 and defendants resided at the relevant time. The deceased died issueless. The plaintiff performed the funeral rites and obsequies and other karmas of the deceased. These are the admitted facts.

3. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of the deceased. The 1st defendant has denied it. Defendant No. 2 admits the same. The second defendant claims to be the second wife of the deceased. The plaintiff admits it, whereas the 1st defendant denies it.

4. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff. P.Ws. 2 to 5 are his witnesses. D.W. 1 is the 1st defendant. D.W. 4 is the second defendant. D.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses of the first defendant and D.Ws. 5 and 6 are the witnesses of second defendant. Exs.A-1 and A-2 and B-1 are the group photos. Ex.A-3 is the negative of Ex.A-2. Ex.A-4 is the copy of Khasra Pahani of Venkatraopet village of Sircilla taluk. These documents are not seriously challenged.

These were the issues:

1. Is the plaintiff the adopted son of the first defendant and Vulse Venkati?

2. Whether the suit schedule A properties are the self-acquired properties of the deceased Vulse Venkati?

3. What are the properties available for partition?

4. To what relief?

5. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides and on the materials placed before him came to the conclusion (1) that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of the deceased and gave a finding on Issue No. 1 in the negative, (2) that the plaint schedule A properties are self acquired properties of plaintiff and the deceased and held Issue No. 2 in the affirmative, (3) that there are no properties available for partition in view of finding on Issues 1 and 2 and found Issue No. 3 again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at HyderabadB.K. SOMASEKHARA, J.Vulsa Laxminarayana - AppellantVersusVulsa Bhoodamma and another - RespondentA.S. No. 497 of 1982Decided on : 07-04-1994

The admission of adoption by a co-defendant is binding on the other co-defendant only if there is a common interest and not merely because of their status as parties in the proceedings.

In the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
B.K. SOMASEKHARA, J.
Vulsa Laxminarayana - Appellant
Versus
Vulsa Bhoodamma and another - Respondent
A.S. No. 497 of 1982
Decided on : 07-04-1994