Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 816
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J
SARASWATAMMA, RAVIKUMAR, JAYAMMA, ARUNA – Appellant
Versus
DATTATREYA, NAGALINGACHAR – Respondent
R.S.A.No.5359/2012(PAR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Chidananda
For the Respondents: V. Vidya Iyer, Abhishek L. Kalled, R. H. Angadi, T. Basavangoud
A registered adoption deed is binding and cannot be contested on grounds of inequity years later; timely action is essential for claims in partition.
Headnote:(A) CPC - Section 100 - Suit for partition and declaration - Appeal against dismissal of the appeal challenging partition dated 09.05.1975 - Adopted son claims partition was inequitable and unfair as it was executed in his absence while he was a minor - The registered adoption deed is binding - Cannot be challenged after a long period, thus no merit in the claim. (Paras 10, 18, 20, 22)
(B) Family Law - Adoption - A registered adoption deed cannot be questioned post-factum as per its legal binding effects - An adopted child is entitled to equal rights unless barred by a valid claim on equitable grounds. (Paras 4, 21)
Facts of the case:
The adopted son alleged the partition deed was inequitable and entered without his consent while he was a minor, and he sought to set it aside. The defendants contended it was equitable considering debts.
Findings of Court:
The suit by the adopted son was dismissed as it lacked merit and was barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the partition deed, executed in absence of the adopted son, was inequitable, and its implications regarding the legal standing of adopted children in partition cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the validity of the registered adoption deed ensured unity in property division, and any challenge must be timely and substantiated, neither of which occurred in this case.
Result: The judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to partition based on inequity. (Para 3 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. equitable considerations in family partition. (Para 4 , 7 , 15) |
| 3. timeliness and acceptance affect rights. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. final decision dismissing suit based on findings. (Para 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
1. The facts that could be discerned from the proceedings are as follows:
2. The geneology of the family is as under:
3. The adopted son of Shivappa and Savithramma i.e., Dattatreya filed the suit for setting aside the partition effected amongst his family members on 09.05.1975 and for a partition and allotment of his share in relation to the suit property.
4. As could be seen from the genealogy, Dattatreya was the son of Manappa, who had been given in adoption to Manappa’s paternal uncle Shivappa. The adoption was effected through a registered Adoption Deed dated 25.03.1967. By virtue of the fact that the adoption was by means of a registered instrument, the same cannot be questioned and would have to be accepted.
5. It was the case of Dattatreya that the partition effected on 09.05.1975 could not be sustained as it had been entered into in his absence and when he was a minor and more importantly, because it was inequitable. Dattatreya contended that since the partition was inequitable, the same had to be set aside and the properties ought to be partitioned, in which event, he was entitled to half a share in the suit properties by virtue of being the only son of Shivappa and Savithramma.
6. The case of the defendants i.e., the branch of Sharbanna was that a registered partition had been entered into on 09.05.1975 in the background of the fact that there was huge debts in the family and in order to discharge those debts, out of approximately 65 acres of land, 29 acres had been allotted to Manappa, the biological father of Dattatreya and the remaining three branches of Sharbanna i.e., Nangalingappa, Narayanappa and Veerabhadrappa were granted approximately, the same extent of 8 to 9 acres and therefore, it could not be contended that the partition was inequitable.
7. It is their contention that Manappa, who was allotted the bulk of the property i.e., nearly 50% of the entire property, had sold the entire extent and Dattatreya, despite being aware of the fact that his biological father Manappa had been allotted 50% of the suit properties and had alienated the entire extent that had been allotted to him, chose to accept the alienations by giving up his claim over them. According to the other three branches of Sharbanna, by acceptance of allotment of larger extent of share to Manappa and the consequential alienations made by him, Dattatreya was essentially giving up the claim for reopening the partition because he could not have put forth the plea that the Partition Deed insofar as it related to allotment to his biological father was just and only the partition effected amongst the other sharers under the Partition Deed was unjust.
8. It is also contended that it is not in dispute that even according to Dattatreya, he was born on 02.02.1964 and he would thus have attained majority on 02.02.1982 and would, therefore, have to file a suit on 02.02.1985, but since the suit has been filed on 23.07.1985, the same was barred by limitation.
9. It is, therefore, contended by the other three branches of Sharbanna that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the partition effected in the year 1975 was inequitable and was required to be set aside and that the partition by metes and bounds, in which, the branch of Shivappa was granted half a share in the suit properties was wholly incorrect.
10. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law:
“Whether Dattatreya who was given away in adoption to Savithramma would be entitled to seek for reopening of partition effected on 09.05.1975 through registered partition deed to which his adoptive mother was a party on the ground that the same was
