The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented, including oral testimony and voter's list entry, was insufficient to prove the adoption, as required under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a second appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

2. Sri.S.Basappa, claiming to be the adopted son of Savandaiah, filed a suit seeking for a declaration that he was the owner and in possession of the suit properties. He also sought for a declaration that the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 executed by Savandaiah in favour of Gangamma—defendant No.1 and his mother—Bhadramma was null and void. He also sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 07.12.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 was null and void, apart from seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

3. The case put forth by the plaintiff was that Savandaiah, who had three daughters namely Gangamma, Bhadramma and Kalamma, had taken the plaintiff in adoption when he was very young, duly observing all the formalities of adoption. He stated that during the life-time of his adoptive father, Savandaiah, he was in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and after his father’s death, he had continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. He stated that, of the three daughters of Savandaiah, Bhadramma (his mother) and Kalamma were no more. He stated that the entries in the revenue records and the school certificate established that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah and in fact, in the caveat filed by defendant No.1, he had been described as being the son of Savandaiah and thus, his adoption had been beyond dispute.

4. He admitted that defendant No.1—Gangamma had filed a suit in O.S. No.197 of 1981 seeking for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit schedule properties on the basis of the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 and the said suit was decreed and the appeal filed by him in R.A. No.81 of 2001 was also dismissed.

5. He also admitted that as against the dismissal of his appeal, R.A. No 81 of 2001, he had preferred a second appeal before this Court in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2006, but the same was also dismissed, however, with an observation that it will be open for him to establish the factum of his adoption during the appropriate proceedings by tendering appropriate evidence and if such a question arose for consideration in such proceedings, the same would have to be considered independent of the findings recorded in O.S. No.197 of 1981. He, therefore, submitted that the question of his adoption had been left open and he would be entitled to establish that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah. He stated that, if he was the adopted son of Savandaiah, obviously, Savandaiah could not have gifted the entire suit properties to defendant No.1 and his mother and to that extent, the gift deed would not be binding upon him.

6. This suit was resisted by Gangamma—his maternal aunt. She stated that her title in respect of the suit properties had been challenged by the plaintiff and she therefore was constrained to file O.S. No.197 of 1981 and the said suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed right up to this Court in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2006 and thus, the fact that she was the owner of the suit properties was beyond dispute and could not be re-agitated indirectly.

7. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 also filed written statement, denying the assertions of the plaintiff. They have stated that the plaintiff was filing suit after the suit unnecessarily and he had no claim over the suit properties which belonged to Savandaiah, who had gifted in its entirety to two of his granddaughters Bhadramma and Gangamma.

8. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah and that after the death of Savandaiah, by virtue of the adoption, he became the absolute owner of the suit properties. The Trial Court also held that the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 gifting the properties in favour of Bhadramma and Gangamma were proved. The Trial Court, accordingly, dismissed the suit.

9. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an a