JUDGMENT

S. B. SINHA, J. — Leave granted in S.L.Ps.

2. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact and having arisen from a common judgment were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judg¬ment.

3. One M. Obalappa was the owner of the property. He had three sons, viz., Nagappa, Obalappa and Kadarappa. M. Obalappa died in 1889. Nagappa separated himself in the year 1913. Obalap¬pa and Kadarappa were, thus, in joint possession of the proper¬ties in suit. Obalappa died in 1949. He had no issue. The plain¬tiffs-respondents are said to be the heirs of the natural daugh¬ter of Kadarappa, viz., Nirmala. Allegedly, she was adopted by Obalappa during his lifetime. Kadarappa died in 1961 leaving seven sons and one daughter Nirmala, whose heirs and legal repre¬sentatives of the plaintiffs claimed themselves, she died in the year 1999. The children of Kadarappa, Gurudas and Others, and their sons, Sagunarthy and Shivarthy, are the Appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.12 of 2006 and 843-44 of 2006 respectively.

4. The properties involve Survey No.97/2 Old No.46-C, Doddabylakhana, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore and Survey No.66 and 75/1, Sarakki, Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore.

5. The purported adoption of Nirmala by Obalappa is in question in the suit. It is, however, not in disptue that on or about 12.9.1947, Obalappa had executed a deed of gift in favour of Nirmala showing her as daughter of Kadarappa but under his guardianship whereas the heirs of Nirmala claimed that Nirmala inherited the property on his death, which as noticed herein before took place in 1949. According to the Appellants, the joint family property devolved by survivorship of Kadarappa. A purport¬ed partition took place between Kadarappa and his sons on 15.6.1954. Nirmala was not given any share therein. It is stated that she was not entitled thereto.

6. The property bearing Survey No.97/2 is said to have been acquired by Brahmanandadas by way of a deed of sale executed by Khaja Ghulam Sheriff from 18.07.1955. It is furthermore not disputed that Kadrappa has transferred three properties in favour of Nirmala as a trustee, referring her to be the foster daughter of Oblappa and describing the said properties to beheld in trust. The Appellants herein contend that Nirmala, during her lifetime, never claimed to be an adopted daughter and she did not have any interest in the joint family properties. In fact in a writ petition questioning acquisition of some properties which were the subject-matter of writ petition No.1517-21 of 1987, she had allegedly admitted that the properties which were subject-matter of acquisition were separate and distinct.

7. The claim that Nirmala was the adopted daughter, howe¬ver, was specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs.

8. The suit was filed by the Respondents on 7.09.2000 wherein the following reliefs were prayed for:

“WHEREFOR, the plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree for partition of their share in the schedule property:

(a) Directing the partition of the suit Schedule and to allot them in favour of plaintiffs

(b) Restrain the defendants, their agents or any person claiming through from alienating the suit properties, by granting an order of permanent injunction.

(c) To order directing enquiry into mesne profits under order XX, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure.

(d) Awards costs of this suit and

(e) Grant such other relief/s, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

9. The said reliefs were claimed inter alia on the premise that Nirmala was the adopted daughter of Obalappa. However, an application for amendment of plaint was filed on or about 5.08.2002 stating that the parties being belonging to Brahmo Samaj faith, Nirmala could claim as natural daughter of Kadarap¬pa. In the said application for amendment, however it was averred that Nirmala was adopted when she was about three years old.

10. It is relevant to menti