JUDGMENT :

The present regular second appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant assailing the judgment and decree of the appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, holding that the plaintiff, is the adopted son of deceased Neelamma w/o Anandraya Hadagil, the absolute owner in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property and the partition in favour of defendant is declared as null and void, not binding on the plaintiff.

2. This Court while admitting the appeal has formulated the following substantial question of law on 13.06.2016:

“In the absence of any evidence as regards the giving and taking of the adoption, whether the Court below could have accepted the adoption deed?”

3. Sri Vinayak Apte, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents have been heard on the substantial question framed by this Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

5. The undisputed facts are that:

(i) Neelamma filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Aland, the occupancy rights was granted on 25.04.1981 in favour of Neelamma and the name of Neelamma was entered in the revenue records as per Form No.10.

(ii) Neelamma adopted the plaintiff-Channaveera on 04.11.2005 and the registered adoption deed was executed on 29.12.2005.

(iii) Neelamma adoptive mother of the plaintiff and defendant are sisters born to one Revappa Shivappa Hadagil.

(iv) Genealogy referred in the plaint is not disputed by the defendant.

(v) Several revenue proceedings were initiated by the defendant and Neelamma in respect of the suit schedule property.

6. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following:

“ISSUES

1. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is the absolute owner, in possession of the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the adopted son to the deceased Neelamma W/o. Anandraya?

3. Whether defendant proves that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?”

7. The trial Court taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence independently and reversed the findings of the trial Court, holding that:

i) The plaintiff is declared as the adoptive son of Neelamma;

ii) Plaintiff is declared as the absolute owner in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property;

iii) The partition deed as contended by the defendant is declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff;

iv) Directed the Revenue Authorities to delete the name of the defendant appearing in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No.190/A to the extent of 5 acres 24 guntas;

v) Defendant or any person claiming through her were restrained perpetually from interfering into the suit land in any manner.

9. Defendant-Chandamma, being aggrieved by the reasoning of the first appellate Court in reversing the finding of the trial Court, has approached this Court in the second appeal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendant would contend that in the absence of any material evidence of giving and taking ceremony as mandate under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the HA & M Act, 1956” for the sake of convenience), the plaintiff has failed to prove the essential ingredients to validate the adoption. Learned counsel would contend that, the adoption as alleged by the plaintiff is by playing fraud on Neelamma and without her consent. He would also contend that Neelamma, during her lifetime, had partitioned the suit schedule property and an extent of 5 acres 24 guntas fell to t