IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that despite a suit being time-barred, the court erred in adjudicating the validity of the adoption deed, and the plaintiff's admissions and evidence proved her awareness of the adoption, leading to the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation.

JUDGMENT

Present regular second appeal is filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.10.2009 passed in Regular Appeal in R.A.No.116/2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'first appellate Court'). The said Regular appeal had been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2006 passed in O.S.No.346/2002 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') which had dismissed the said suit. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment and order while dismissing the said Regular appeal and confirming the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court had however reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 3 by answering them in the affirmative. It is this portion of the impugned judgment and order that is challenged by the appellant in this case.

2. Cross Objection No.110/2009 is filed by the plaintiff/cross-objector aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the first appellate court to the extent dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.

3. Parties are referred to by their original ranking before the trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. The plaintiff filed the above suit seeking relief in the nature of judgment and decree declaring that the Deed of Adoption created on 23.03.1961 by the defendant showing himself as the adopted son of the plaintiff is null and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or transferring the house and shop properties;

(i) bearing CTS No.309 measuring 18.39 sq.mts. Ward No.2 of Bijapur,

(ii) CTS No.310 measuring 17.56 sq.mts. Ward No.2 of Bijapur,

(iii) CTS No.121/B measuring 167.22 sq.mts. Ward No.2 of Bijapur,

(iv) CTS No.771, measuring 235.78 sq.mts. ward No.3 of Bijapur

(herein after referred to as the 'suit properties')

contending inter alia that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties having inherited from her husband- Savalgeppa Mallappa Bagalkot, who died on 15.01.1961 leaving behind him the plaintiff as his sole legal heir. That upon his demise, name of the plaintiff was entered into the revenue records in respect of suit properties. That the defendant who is neither related to the plaintiff nor to her deceased husband had fraudulently created a Deed of Adoption, based on which claimed right over the suit properties. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant in the written statement had claimed that plaintiff and her husband had no issues. That, upon the death of her husband on 15.01.1961, plaintiff adopted him as her son. That a Deed Of Adoption was registered on 23.03.1961 in this regard. Since then the defendant as adopted son of the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit properties and his name was also entered into the revenue records in respect of the suit properties. That the plaintiff adopted the defendant in terms of Hindu law and prevailing customs and traditions in the presence of witnesses to the said Deed Of Adoption. That property bearing CTS No.96/8B+9A was sold to one Sri.Anil Kumar Pattar jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant. That during the year 1998 due to her old age plaintiff had executed a family arrangement deed in favour of the defendant. That the suit is hit by Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1956). That the plaintiff had not challenged the registered Deed of Adoption within time as such suit is barred by limitation.

Judgment and order of the Trial Court:

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues;

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the adoption deed dated:23.03.1961 that the defendant is the adopted son of plaintiff is null and void?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

(3) Whether the suit is time barred?

(4) What order or decree?"

7. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and exhibited 5 documents, marked as