The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of an adoption claim must comply with the requirements of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. A compromise decree declaring adoption must satisfy the provisions of the Act, and any non-compliance renders the adoption void.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The top noted second appeal is fi led by the defendant questioning the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in R.A.No.109/2015 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2015 passed in O.S.No.68/2007.

2. The facts leading to this second appeal are as under:

The father of respondent Nos.1 & 2 namely Shekharayya filed O.S.No.68/2007 for declaration and injunction by speci fical ly contending that he is the sole heir of late Shivagangavva and her son Mahantayya and as such he has acquired val id right and title over the suit schedule properties and consequently prayed for rel ief of injunction restraining the present appel lant/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit properties. The original plaintif f Shekharayya speci fically averred in the plaint that after death of Shivagangavva and Mahantayya, he appl ied for change in Katha. The said varadhi was objected by present appel lant/defendant. Basing this as a cause of action, the present suit in O.S.No.68/2007 is filed by the father of respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely Shekharayya. The original plaintif f Shekharayya speci fical ly averred in the plaint that the present appel lant/defendant is stranger to the fami ly of the plainti f f. Original Plaintiff also disputed the status of the present appel lant/defendant as adopted son.

3. On receipt of the summons, the present appel lant/defendant contested the proceedings by fi l ing written statement. The present appel lant admitted that the propositus Sanganabasayya was the erstwhile owner of al l the suit schedule properties. However, the claim of plaintiff i.e., he is the sole surviving heir of Shivagangavva and Mahantayya was seriously disputed by present appel lant/defendant. A speci fic contention was taken in the written statement that the propositus Sanganabasayya had three sons and one daughter by name Shankaravva. Since Kallayya and Shivagangavva had no issues, they adopted Mahantayya.

4. The present appel lant further contended that Mahantayya who is the adopted son of Shivagangavva died issueless and this compel led Shivagangavva to take present the appel lant in adoption. The appellant/defendant also further contended that his status is admitted by Shivagangavva in a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.124/1992.

5. The Trial Court based on the rival contentions formulated the fol lowing issues.

1. Whether the plainti ffs prove that, they are sole heirs of late Shivagangavva and her son mahantayya?

2. Whether the defendant proves that, he is the adopted son of said Shivagangavva?

3. Whether the defendant proves that, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as contended at para-8 of the written statement?

4. Whether the defendant proves that, suit property's value was rupees four lakh and more and this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction?

5. Whether the defendant proves that, no partition was taken place between original owners?

6. Whether the defendant proves that, suit is bad for non-joinder of other properties as contended at para-9 of the written statement?

7. Whether the defendants prove that, suit in the present from is not maintainable?

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the rel ief sought for?

9. What order or decree?

6. The respondents/plainti ffs led in oral evidence and to substantiate their case, examined plainti ff No.1A as PW.1 and rel ied on the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.7. The present appel lant in support of his contention examined himself as DW.1 and by way of rebuttal evidence relied on Ex.D.1 to D.6. Ex.D.3 is the certi fied copy of the compromise arrived in O.S.No.124/1992.

7. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record rejected the rel ief of declaration and by moulding the rel ief granted 1/3 share to respondent-plainti ff by holding that they have failed to establ ish that they are the only Class-I heirs of late Shivagangavva and her son Mahantayya. Insofar as the c