The court upheld that a registered adoption presumes validity unless disproved, affirming married daughters' inheritance rights under Hindu law.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - The plaintiff claimed ½ share in the suit properties described in three distinct schedules. The suit is decreed. The defendants have filed these two first appeals.

2. The admitted genealogy of the parties is as under:

(Defendants claim that 6th defendant Shivakumar is adopted by plaintiff's mother Channabasavva. The plaintiff disputed the adoption)

3. The trial Court held that the adoption of the 6th defendant under the registered adoption deed dated 02.09.1996 is not proved. The trial Court also rejected the defence that certain properties are self-acquired properties of Veerabhadrappa - the propositus of the defendants' branch.

4. Other facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are as under:

One Basappa was the propositus. His wife was Savantravva. The couple had two sons Mallappa and Veerabhadrappa. Mallappa died in 1995. Veerabhadrappa died in 1990. Mallappa's wife Channabasavva, died in 1999. Bangaravva the plaintiff, is the daughter of Mallappa and Channabasavva.

5. Veerabhadrappa the second son of the propositus Basappa, married Virupakshavva. From the said marriage he has three sons viz., Shivanand, Basappa and Shashidhar, and two daughters Shantavva and Girijavva.

6. Basappa the son of Veerabhadrappa married Shashikala. Shivakumar is the son of Veerabhadrappa and Shashikala. The defendants claim that the plaintiff's mother Channabasavva, after her husband's death, adopted Shiva Kumar.

7. The plaintiff disputed alleged adoption of Shivakumar by her mother. The Plaintiff claims that she is the only daughter and class I heir of Mallappa and Channabasavva. Thus the plaintiff claimed ½ share in the suit properties held by her father Mallappa at the time of his death.

8. The defendants contended that item No.1 property was gifted to 1st defendant Shivanand in the year 1942 by Shankravva who is not connected to the family, and item No.9 to 11 properties (formerly Sy. No.26) were purchased under the registered sale deed dated 03.07.1961 by their father Veerabhadrappa. It is also the case of the defendants that item No.6 property was independently acquired by Veerabhadrappa.

9. Item Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13 properties are the said properties gifted by Savantravva in favour of her two sons Mallappa and Veerabhadrappa in 1942 and those properties were tenanted lands and occupancy rights were jointly granted in favour of Mallappa and Veerabhadrappa. After the death of Mallappa and Veerabhadrappa, the plaintiff being the married daughter of Mallappa, does not acquire any right is the submission.

10. The trial Court disbelieved the adoption of Shivakumar and concluded held all the suit properties are joint family properties and declared half share to the plaintiff.

11. Defendants No.2 and 7 - the natural parents of Shivakumar filed an appeal in RFA No.100182/2014. Shivakumar claiming to be the adopted son of plaintiff's mother Channabasavva, filed an appeal in RFA No.100181/2014.

12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the aforementioned appeals.

13. Sri. J.S.Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised the following contentions;

13.1 The properties purchased in the name of Veerabhadrappa are the self-acquired properties of Veerabhadrappa.

13.2 The Tribunal granted occupancy rights over certain prope