Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 567
Karnataka High Court
NAGALINGAPPA - Appellant
Versus
INDIRAWWA - Respondent
Decided On : 09-12-02
R.S.A. : 523 of 1998
A.V.KATARKI, ANANT MANDGI, B.R.PATIL, B.S.Patil, P.G.UPANAL
Headnote:Validity of adoption deed
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 100 -Validity of adoption deed - Just because none of the attesting witnesses are alive, the deed cannot be doubted.
[B. K. Sangalad, J.] - Adoption deed which was registered has to be believed in view of the notice published in the Sandesh paper on 28.12.1953. If at all adoption had not taken place, the defendants ought to have produced any document of any other material in addition to producing reliable evidence for other customary rights. The respondents have not ventured to do so. Simply, they want to set up that it is only Muralidhar who was taken in adoption. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that if Muralidhar was taken in adoption, some photographs and documents ought to have been produced. The same kind of burden lies on the shoulders of Muralidhar and other respondents also to establish that it was Muralidhar who was taken in adoption. This contention is set at naught by the written statement of defendant No.9. This defendant admits adoption and rights of the plaintiff. In addition to this Defendants 2,3,5,6,7,10,13,14,16 by inference admit the adoption and the rights of the plaintiff by endorsing the written statement filed by defendant No.9. Merely defendant No. 20 has filed the written statement denying adoption is no ground to reject the case of the plaintiff. If the defendants other than Manappa s Branch are asking the plaintiff to prove the adoption, it is equally true that they have to prove the adoption by discharging their duty. At least the plaintiff has produced the photograph and he has examined the photographer also. The photographer is an independent witness. There is nothing on the record to show that the photographer is bent upon telling lie in order to help the plaintiff. In addition to this, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is also helpful. Ex. P14 is the photograph and Ex. P.16 is the negative. This patently speaks that adoption did take place.
Cases Referred: AIR 1993 Patna 129; AIR 1989 Cal 202; AIR 1977 Ker 41; AIR 1991 SC 1180; AIR 1968 Mys 309; AIR 1988 Kar 248.
Veracity of the adoption deed
(INDIAN) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872-
Section 90 -Veracity of the adoption deed - for the mere fact that the document is 30 years old and that the attesting witnesses are dead and gone, the veracity of the document need not be doubted.
[B. K. Sangalad, J.] - Adoption deed which was registered has to be believed in view of the notice published in the Sandesh paper on 28.12.1953. If at all adoption had not taken place, the defendants ought to have produced any document of any other material in addition to producing reliable evidence for other customary rights. The respondents have not ventured to do so. Simply, they want to set up that it is only Muralidhar who was taken in adoption. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that if Muralidhar was taken in adoption, some photographs and documents ought to have been produced. The same kind of burden lies on the shoulders of Muralidhar and other respondents also to establish that it was Muralidhar who was taken in adoption. This contention is set at naught by the written statement of defendant No.9. This defendant admits adoption and rights of the plaintiff. In addition to this Defendants 2,3,5,6,7,10,13,14,16 by inference admit the adoption and the rights of the plaintiff by endorsing the written statement filed by defendant No.9. Merely defendant No. 20 has filed the written statement denying adoption is no ground to reject the case of the plaintiff. If the defendants other than Manappa s Branch are asking the plaintiff to prove the adoption, it is equally true that they have to prove the adoption by discharging their duty. At least the plaintiff has produced the photograph and he has examined the photographer also. The photographer is an independent witness. There is nothing on the record to show that the photographer is bent upon telling lie in order to help the plaintiff. In addition to this, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is also helpful. Ex. P14 is the photograph and Ex. P.16 is the negative. This patently speaks that adoption did take place.
Cases Referred: AIR 1993 Patna 129; AIR 1989 Calcutta 202; AIR 1977 Kerala 41; AIR 1991 SC 1180; AIR 1968 Mys 309; AIR 1988 Kar 248.
( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saudatti, in R. A. No. 4 of 1996 (Old r. A. No. 142 of 1990) confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1990 passed by the Munsiff, Ramdurg, in O. S. No. 165 of 1989 the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
( 2 ) THE ranks of the parties shall be followed as in the lower Court. The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondents are the legal representatives of original respondents as rioted in the cause title.
( 3 ) THE facts in nutshell are that the appellant is the legally adopted son of one Rudrappa Pattar who died in the year 1955 leaving behind his wife who also died in the year 1963 and the appellant (the adopted son ). The adoption of the appellant took place on 7-11-1953 according to the religious practice of the community of the respondents. The adoption ceremony took place at a place called Shirasangi on 7-11-1953. The adoption deed, after the adoption, was executed at Ramdurg on 18-11-1953. Since the date of adoption, the appellant has become the adopted son of Rudrappa who had three brothers by name Kalappa, Manappa and Lingappa. The appellant filed suit O. S. No. 165 of 1989 for partition and separate possession of his l/4th share in four agricultural lands situated at Chippalakatti, bearing R. S. Nos. 42, 2/2, 5/2 and 125/1 and three agricultural lands situated at Kunnal Village, Ramdurg Taluq bearing R. S. Nos. 96, 91/5 and 92/4 and five house properties situated at chippalakatti Village bearing V. P. C. Nos. 76/1+2, 71/1, 71/2, 71/3 and 145. These properties shall be referred to as suiit properties. It is further stated by the appellant that by virtue of the certified copy of the regis- tered adopted deed, he is the adopted son of late Rudrappa, the only legal heir to be entitled to l/4th share in the suit property.
( 4 ) THE respondents have resisted the suit claim but, Kalappa and manappa have admitted the adoption of the appellant. The case of the other defendants is that one Muralidhar was taken in adoption as such, the appellant is not the adopted son. After the service of notice, the defendants appeared. Among these defendants 9 and 20 have submitted their own written statement. The rest of the defendants 1, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17 to 23 have adopted the written statement of defendant 20 and defendants 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 have adopted the written statement "of defendant 9. The case of defendant 20 can be stated as under:"the plaintiff was not adopted by Rudrappa at any time. He is the son of Shankarappa Manappa Pattar shown in the Pedigree. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this suit describing himself as the adopted son of Rudrappa. The Pedigree produced along with the plaint is not correct and the plaintiff has wrongly shown himself as the adopted son of Rudrappa. It is muralidhar, the deceased husband of defendant 20 and father of defendants 21 to 24 who was adopted by deceased Rudrappa and as such, the pedigree showing the plaintiff instead of Muralidhar as the adopted son of Rudrappa is wrong and misleading. The genealogy at Schedule B is not correct. It is also denied that the plaintiff was adopted on 7-11-1953 according to the religious customs prevailing in the community to which the parties belong and that as per the request of Rudrappa, the plaintiffs genetive father has given the plaintiff in adoption. It is also stated that the plaintiff describing himself as the adopted son of Rudrappa has misled and according to him, he was given in adoption to one murugeppa. Therefore, the plaintiff is trying to put forth a false claim. It is also further denied that the adoption ceremony took place at Shirasangi on 7-11-1953. This defendant admits that shekawwa w/o. Rudrappa died in the year 1964. But it is denied that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of Smt. Shekawwa. ft is also stated "it is true that there was no partition in the family during r
