Point of law: A perfectly valid adoption deed can be made without an adoption deed and any status which the adopted son gets by virtue of adoption is due to the proper ceremonies being performed and not any deed passed as evidence of that adoption.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed for praying to set aside the judgment & decree passed in RA No.11/2008 dated 31.10.2008 by learned Civil Judge, (Sr.dn.) & JMFC, Nagamangala and judgment and decree dated 12.12.2007 passed in OS.No.153/1999 by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Nagamangala and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The appellants were defendants No.1 & 3 and respondent No.1 was plaintiff in-O.S.No.153/1999. The defendant No.2-N.L. Srikanta son of Late N.H. Lingappa has not been arraigned as party in this second appeal. He was arraigned as respondent No.1 in the first appeal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties by meets and bounds and mesne profits. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 are brothers and their father died about six years prior to filing of suit leaving behind plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 as legal heirs to succeed his properties. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants also died five years prior to the filing of the suit. It is stated that during the life time of father they were living together in joint family and after death of parents, defendant No.1 continued to be the manager of the joint family. It is stated that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and they fallen to the share of father of plaintiff and defendants under partition and revenue records came to be changed in the name of defendant No.1 without consent of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant No.1 was mismanaging the joint family properties and therefore, plaintiff requested to allot his share. The defendants did not give share to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff convened the panchayat but nothing happened in the said panchayat. The plaintiff got issued notice to the defendants dated 28.08.1999, seeking his share as the defendants did not give share. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition.

4. Defendant No.1 in his Written Statement has admitted the relationship but contended that the plaintiff has been adopted by B.K. Nanjegowda who is the matrimonial uncle i.e., brother of their mother as he had no issues. It is stated that the plaintiff left the company of his natural parents when he was aged seven years and performed all ceremonies of giving and taking by natural father and to that of the adoptive father. The daughter Jayalakshmi who is sister of plaintiff & defendant No.1 is also necessary party and she is not impleaded and therefore, the suit is of bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. It is stated that B.K. Najegowda, adoptive father of plaintiff has executed the Registered Will dated 22.01.1983 bequeathing his properties to the plaintiff. After adoption plaintiff severed his relation with his natural parents and was enjoying the properties of his adoptive parents and living in the family of adoptive parents. It is stated that defendants No.1 & 2 are living separately and are enjoying their properties separately after partition. Defendant No.2 did not get the katha changed to his name as he was not in good terms with his wife. It is stated that item No.4 of the suit schedule property was standing in the name of grandfather of the defendants. The Grandfather of the defendants had 3 brothers and therefore, father of the defendants is entitled only for 1/3rd share in item No.4. Item No.5 of suit schedule property measuring 2 guntas situated in Sy.No.39/1 was sold by the defendants father long back and it is not a joint family property. So defendant No.1 for the purpose of performing marriage of his daughter sold 20 guntas of land out of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property. Sale deed came to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Kempaiah on 28.07.1999 and it is binding on the interest of plaintiff. The said alienation is made as manager of the family for