Plaintiffs entitled to share in joint family properties despite misinterpretation of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by Defendants 1 to 11 is preferred against the judgement and decree dt. 22-11-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, in O. S. No. 42 of 1974. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. In this judgement, Respondents 1 and 2 would be referred to as Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the appellants as Defendants 1 to 11 respectively.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-1 is the adopted son of Plaintiff-2. They filed the suit in O. S. No. 42 of 1974 for partition and separate possession of half share in 'b' and 'c' schedule properties and for accounts of management by Defendant-1 and also for a decree for past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per year and for an enquiry into future mesne profits also.

( 3 ) THE relationship of the parties is not in dispute. One Harubyle Sannegowda was the original porpoises. He had 4 sons by name Obaiah, Ujinanna, Venkappagowda and Ramanna Gowda. Obaiah and Ujinanna's branches became extinct as they died unmarried and issueless. Venkappagowda died in the year 1940 leaving behind his widow who is plaintiff-2. Defendant-1 is Ramanna Gowda and Defendant-2 is his wife. Defendants 3. to 11 are their children. Plaintiff-1 was taken in adoption by Plaintiff 2 under a registered Deed of Adoption marked as Exhibit P. 1. The suit was instituted on 22-3-1974 for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 4 ) IN the light of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as 15 issues. It held that the adoption of Plaintiff-1 was proved and it was valid. It also held that the immoveable properties mentioned in 'b' Schedule and moveable properties mentioned in Schedule 'c' were joint family properties. However, it further held that Items 2, 4, 12, 16, 18 and 19 being in possession of tenants were not available for partition. Accordingly it excluded them from partition. After holding that the adoption was proved and it was valid, the trial Judge came to the conclusion, even after noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Sawanram v. Kalawanthi, AIR 1967 SC 1761, that on the death of Venkappagowda, Ramannagowda was the only coparcener and the entire properties vested in him, since the adoption had taken place on 24-11-1972 after the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 came into force. Therefore, the adopted son could not divest the properties vested in Ramannagowda. On this reasoning, the learned Judge rejected the prayer for partition. However, he awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to the plaintiffs from November, 1972, reserving liberty to the parties to have the amount of maintenance either reduced or enhanced according to the circumstances in which they would be placed.

( 5 ) IN this appeal the plaintiffs have also filed Cross-Objections. According to them the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in rejecting their prayer for partition on the ground that there was vesting.

( 6 ) HAVING regard to the contentions raised on both the sides, the following points arise for consideration :1) Whether the first plaintiff was validly adopted by the second plaintiff on 24-11-1972 to her husband ?2) If the first point is answered in the affirmative, whether Plaintiffs 1 and 2 would be entitled to a share in the suit properties; and if so, what would be the share of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the joint family properties ?3) Whether the suit schedule properties mentioned in Schedules B and C are the joint family properties ?4) Whether all the properties mentioned in B and C Schedules are proved to be joint family properties, and if so whether all of them are available for partition ?5) Whether the decree as to maintenance is required to be maintained ?6) What order ?

( 7 ) POINT No. 1 :- In this case the adoption is evidenced by a registered deed of adoption produced as Ex. P. 1 dt. 24-11-1972. It is executed by the person (Plaintiff 2) who has taken the first plaintiff in adoption and also by the parents of the first plaintiff who have given him in adoption. Thus it