Ajit J. Gunjal, J.

1. Admit.

2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:

(a) Whether the learned Appellate Judge was justified in reversing the finding of the learned Trial Judge on the question of adoption holding that there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his adoption?

(b) Whether the suit property is a joint family property of the defendants?

(c) Whether the learned Appellate Judge was justified in recording a finding that the suit property is a Joint Family Property of the defendants’ family i.e., the genetic family of the plaintiff.

3. The records are received and the matter is taken up for final disposal with consent.

4. During the course of this Judgment, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

5. The plaintiff’s suit is for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property, for delivery of vacant possession and to pay damages was decreed on contest, by the learned Trial Judge. The same was questioned by the contesting defendants before the Lower Appellate Court.

The Lower Appellate Court, on re-assessing the evidence has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove adoption. Consequently, the question of granting a decree for declaration would not arise. Hence, dismissed the suit.

6. Few facts are necessary to be stated for disposal of this appeal:

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to one Iragappa S/o. Muniyappa. The said Iragappa being a close relative of the plaintiff’s genetic father adopted the plaintiff about 35 years back, when he was about two months old. The adoptive parents of the plaintiff 1 died about 30 years prior to the filing of the suit. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the life time of his adoptive parents they gave him education, got him married, and gave all the properties including the suit property and he being the adopted son of Iragappa and Hiremma is enjoying the properties in his own right. Defendant No.1 is the genetic elder brother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is the second wife of defendant No.1 and defendants 3 and 4 are the children of defendants 1 and 2 and defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant No.3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during monsoon, the house belonging to the second defendant collapsed and on humanitarian grounds, an area measuring 32 feet X 37 feet was given to them to put up a small construction. The defendants had promised that they would vacate the area within six months time. Since they did not vacate, the present suit is filed for aforesaid reliefs.

7. The defendants have entered appearance pursuant to the suit summons. They have contested the proceedings inter alia contending that the suit property is the Joint Family property of the defendants and it does not belong to the family of Iragappa. The defendants would also deny the adoption. They would further contend that the defendants 2 and 3 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession against defendant No.1 and children of the 1st wife of defendant No.1 in O.S. No.582/1993. The said suit, on contest was decreed, which according to the defendants has attained finality. The defendants would further state that the subject matter of the present suit was also one of the properties, which was partitioned. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. During trial, the learned Trial Judge has framed as many as six issues. On the material issue, the learned Trial Judge has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved that he is the adopted son of Iragappa and Hiremma and consequently has derived title of the suit schedule property inasmuch as he belongs to the family of Iragappa and consequently decreed the suit. As stated earlier, the learned Appellate Judge has reversed the finding on the ground that no evidence is forthcoming to show that the plaintiff had gone in adoption to Iragappa and Hiremma