Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33404
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SRI. SHESHAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA DASAR – Appellant
Versus
SRI. RAMAPPA VENKAPPA DASAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR
For the Respondents: SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, SRI. M.C. HUKKERI
Adoption validity can hinge on customs despite statutory age restrictions; partition claims cannot be dismissed for time-bar without proof of adverse possession.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 10 - Suit for declaration and partition - The appellant sought to establish adoption to claim property rights, but trial court dismissed on grounds of improper status and limitation - Court overturned finding regarding adoption validity and ruled that for partition suits, lack of evidence on adverse possession invalidates time-bar claims - Adoption deemed valid as per local customs. (Paras 24-26, 15)
(B) Appeal - Admissibility of adoption with respect to age - Customary practices under Bombay School of Hindu law recognized adoption of individuals older than statutory age limits. (Paras 22-23)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a suit aimed at declaring and partitioning property claimed to belong to the late Balappa. The plaintiff challenged the trial court's ruling, which dismissed the case citing lack of evidence for adoption and the bar of limitation.
Findings of Court:
The findings on time-bar dismissed; adoption established under customary law; plaintiff entitled to a share in the properties.
Issues: The core issues included the proofs of adoption and the implications of the time-bar on the partition claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that validity of adoption does not solely hinge on statutory age limits if local customs permit and stressed dismissal based on time-bar required proof of adverse possession.
Result: Appeal allowed with directions on the share in the properties and the payment of mesne profits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal regarding family property and adoption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the adoption. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observations on the adoption's authenticity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. decisions on adoption validity and partition claims. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 5. final orders on appeal and mesne profits. (Para 26) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff No.1(A) is before this Court in this first appeal. The suit is one for declaration and partition. The original plaintiff challenged the decree passed in O.S.No.23/1980 on the premise that the said decree does not bind the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought relief of partition in respect of two properties on the premise that the property originally belonged to one Balappa who is plaintiff’s husband’s grand father. The admitted genealogy is as under:
2. Balappa and Tulajappa were two brothers. Balappa had two sons by name Sheshappa and Venkappa. Tulajappa had a son by name Sheshappa. Elder son of Balappa namely Sheshappa had three children namely Balappa, Rukmavva and Sheshavva. Younger son Venkappa had a son by name Ramappa.
3. After the death of grand son Balappa, Balappa’s wife Tulasavva filed a suit for declaration and partition.
4. Ramappa-the son of Venkappa is the first defendant. Rukmavva and Sheshavva, the daughters of Venakappa are arrayed as defendants No.2 and 3.
5. Sheshappa- the son of Tulajappa is arrayed as defendant No.4. The defendants No.1 to 3 disputed the status of Tulasavva as the wife of late Balappa. It is also urged that the suit is time barred.
6. The suit is filed in the year 1996. After the death of plaintiff Tulasavva in the year 2002, plaintiff No.1(A) (defendant No.4) came on record as adopted son of plaintiff based on the registered adoption deed dated 22.02.1997. In view of the claim made by plaintiff No.1(A) based on the aforementioned adoption, the issue is framed relating to status of plaintiff No.1(A) as the adopted son of Tulasavva.
7. The Trial Court held that the adoption is not proved and dismissed the suit. In addition, the Trial Court also concluded that the suit is time barred and it is cited as one more reason to dismiss the suit. However, the Trial Court has held that the plaintiff-Tulasavva is wife of Balappa.
8. Plaintiff No.1(A)-the person claiming to be a adopted son of Tulasavva has filed this appeal.
9. Learned counsel Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar appearing for plaintiff No.1(A)/appellant would contend that the adoption deed is duly registered and evidence is led in proof of adoption and adoption of plaintiff No.1(A). The adoption has taken place during the pendency of the suit when the defendants No.1 to 3 disputed the status as wife of Balappa and the plaintiff had every reason to take defendant No.4 in the adoption as she had no issues and she was looked after by defendant No.4. The Trial Court could not held that the adoption is illegal. He would also contend that the finding of the Trial Court that the suit is time barred is also incorrect and in a suit for partition, unless the defendant proves the ouster and adverse possession, the suit cannot be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the legal representative of the original defendant-Ramappa would support the case of the plaintiff and would urge that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the properties.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants would contend that the adoption is not proved. It is also urged that the decree in O.S.No.23/1980 has attained finality and same is confirmed by this Court and the plaintiff has not chosen to question the said finding and the Trial Court has rightly held that the suit is time barred.
12. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that, even if the adoption is held to be proved, the said adoption is illegal as the plaintiff No.1(A) was aged 21 years at the time of alleged adoption and in view of the bar contained under Sec
