The judgment established the recognition of adoption among Indian Christians based on customary law and inheritance rights under the Indian Succession Act.

Anand Byrareddy, J.—This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2, in a suit for partition. Plaintiff no. 1 was the widow of one Ravindra Shiri. Plaintiff no. 2 was the minor daughter of Plaintiff no. 1. The defendants were the daughter and grand-daughter, respectively, of one Suvarthappa Karkada. The parties are Indian Christians. The suit properties belonged to Karkada. The same consisted of property bearing No. 76, at Badagubettu village, Udupi Taluk, measuring about 1.27 acres. The property comprised of a residential house, four tenanted premises and a saw mill, in the name and style of, Hindustan Saw Mill. Karkada is said to have died on 13.10.1985. His wife, Gertrude Karkada had also died on 14.6.1995. Defendant no. 1 was the only daughter of Karkada.

2. The plaintiff no. 1 claimed that her husband, Ravindra Shiri was the son of defendant no. 1, Joyce Pushpalatha and her husband, Joseph Sudarshan Siri. It was claimed that Suvarthappa Karkada had executed a registered will dated 21.4.1984, bequeathing his properties in favour of the following:

3. Gertrude Karkada, Joyce Pushpalatha, Ravindra Shiri and defendant no. 2- Geetha Heidi, respectively. In that, 50% share of the suit properties were bequeathed to Gertrude, the wife of Suvarthappa. 25% share therein was bequeathed to Joyce-defendant no. 1, and 121/2% share each, to the grand-children, Ravindra Shin and Geetha Heidi-defendant no. 2.

4. After the death of Suvarthappa and Gertrude Karkada, defendant no. 1 is said to have sought for grant of probate in respect of the will of Suvarthappa, as the named executrix thereof, in proceedings in P& SC 37/2000 before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore. Probate was granted in her favour.

5. It was the claim of the plaintiffs that they were denied their legitimate share in the property. It was claimed Plaintiff no. 1 as the widow of Ravindra Shiri and plaintiff no. 2 as his daughter were together entitled to 12 1/2% share in the suit Schedule property, namely, the share of the property bequeathed under the will of Suvarthappa and the 25% share which had devolved on Ravindra Shiri on the death of his mother Gertrude. Hence there was a joint claim for a total extent of 37 1/2% share in the suit properties, including the income and profits arising out of the properties and business.

6. The defendants contested the suit. It was admitted that the suit properties belonged to late Suvarthappa. But it was denied that Ravindra Shiri was the son born to defendant no. 1. It was claimed that he was in fact the child of one Ponnamma, who was a maid servant in their house, but was brought up as their own, by defendant no. 1 and her husband. The defendants denied the contents of the will relied upon by the plaintiffs and contended that the late Suvarthappa who had lost his son Roland, who had committed suicide, was not in a sound state of mind at the relevant point of time and hence it was asserted that the will was not genuine.

7. It was also alleged by the defendants that they were not aware of the probate proceedings and that Ravindra Shiri was managing the business of the defendants and had misappropriated huge amounts of money and had acquired a car, a motor cycle and other valuable movables, apart from taking away cash and jewels belonging to Gertrude, immediately on her death. It was however conceded that Ravindra Shiri held a 30% share in the saw mill business as a partner. And it was denied that the plaintiffs had any share in the suit properties.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings the court below framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that first plaintiff husband Ravindra Shiri is the son of first defendant?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that Suvarthappa Karkada executed a registered will dated 21.4.1984 in favour of Ravindra Shiri and Geetha Heidi and plaintiff and first defendant were the trustee executors and guardians of the properties of the said grant children?

3. Whether the plaintiffs further p