Ag:*icL1ltLi:”ist.
Residing; at Doddzikeri.
Shil<a:'ipu1'z1 Town.
Shimogai District.
Pin Cocfe: 577 m.
(“By Shri.K.B.Lol<zmz1tl1, Advocate for Re:$p_Qnde;it il\li(:1i*.:.E';v}»
This Reglilai' Secmid Appe;,1'E'–.._i.~; 'E""ilenE Lli',Lit;'.l"'i,_SC'fl{l'i'£).llV,I-{)0 ()2? L'
Code of Civil Pl'0(,'CdLE1'€. E908 '.1g;1ihS{ the }u.r_i_g'ii7:e-iii 13116 decree
dated: 20.9.2006 passed in__ RA.NQ.__20'3./Oil'.,_L)l1 tl1e'fi.l_e (A1? the Civil
Judge (Senior Divisi_0n),v Saga1i', fipartily …;:3.lijwi1ig the appeal and
partly setting aside/:i1()dil'yi;1g'thef1;hivdgimel2.t'iand decree dated:
E8. l().20('}l passed in O.S.E\lV(_),? Q11 the 1°i~lfe 0f the Civil Judge
(Junior Division) vzinicl S"iill'i§.£11Tip'U:l'-find 'e1£:eLi.
This Ap.pe;i_lfeoifiing_Vk;;:;'}' ._l1)1"lihe'*.;1ri:1g this day, the Court
delivered.{l':eefi)All'Qwiiig:9
H_e_'.u*d the Ct_).l,l]lSCi.'ff'('ll"slllif appellant. The L'(.)Lli]St?l for {he
0
‘i’e–sp£)’ndeniI:”ihas Al’:-31111-iiE1iédH€1bSCi3l 1E”:0Ligl1 the mauei’ was called out
intlie-11iorIiing’ a1fm;l_iheard ‘f()I’ S(,)l1}€ time uric] Lhe1’ea-1li’a’ei* in the post-
‘ V ‘ lu nc h Hess is 1’: .. V
l$}LlbSlC£El1EiEii qtaestions of-lzzw:
_ Z. The appeal W215 admitted Zlflifl’ fl’£1I’l}lI’lg the l’ollowi:ig
3
“E. Whether the impugned judgment of both
the C-t)LlI'[‘S below is coiitimy to the law dczciured by
the’: Supreme Court in :’\/ar-mim.-= V_t-*(.mkczI C}/’m.cz’gt*
czigd {I;~1(]t\'[l{‘,}\- tit», C}/1c.zn.a’mkmz.I Ganpzzt G/tmlge c:{:a;VZ:t
or/’z¢:2r.s’, AIR 2003 SC I 735′?
2. Whs.-:thc:1′ the suit is btld for I’}()l1_~’vj’t)’i’2E(;’l::<"3vE'bU3?'
necessary pzti'ties'.=' "
‘7». At the time o1″heari1’ig,.tht_: Con”.-1_s’ei for th’€§~ L:.}.3v])€i]12;li§1[ i’-ai;;€*;s 21
further substantiai question of law”v«.n’:m}eiy, ‘th;tt’the Vf.=tci0pti(m Qieed
which was set up by the i’t:«s;§’;)nd’:»:nt;,j_did”not .i’mjit:attc that there was no
indication ot’giv’i!r1_g: _u;}.i:i :-1t:i’c>ptit)_i1 and it was not sigited by the natureti
parents cit’ .__th::_ 1*£::’;.;3t)’nt’1’*t-1tit’:-._bi”Therefore. an udditiom-:1 stlbstattttiztl
c;uesEitjh”t>fiaw= is» 2.t_!St’i f’1’ttim~:d. atameiy,
A “‘Wh.éth,ér«-.tVhe adoption is Contrziry to the l'(i(;]L]iF€H1€l’EI
12 Emd even though that: :.td()pti0n deed
A d()CLIE’t1t3I1I’., at presttniption under seagtion
161%/V’i)UId not arise as there is no i1’1<iimfer1t.. who ztilegittiiy g£’t’v’t3 the 1’c:s;p(.)nd€11t in
ado prion 1′
“‘ht)Idtiti§;,_A’th’éit.
3
:,–1ny estate which vested in them before such titloptitm. Hence, he
would submit that the cottrts below were not jttstified in deereeing the
suit. on \’aiI’}’tI1g terms’ in t’:.1voL1r (If the tespondettt — plztiti.-t__i£Tt1rtd he
would place rehztnce on :1 _}ttdg_;met1t in the case of !Vc:}-“Me.t:’=’._V}:cz1’1k<1f
G/Madge and anarlzer vs. Cl'1tmt!ra.k(u2I Gcmpat G/2(l(?:t,1§f Lz.:{zd.tirlrcetmt Afft'
2003 SC' 1735. which Eztys Ctovvtt thet adopgnm 2-ettttieg E3_tt't':§e._t();_s:1’y’~–that'”th_e rights of a1th.)pted son
are in ah_respects.’–idetttiett’i”w:§’tl1V’tlitztt at a ‘”t1v;3ttt11″ta1 bortt son. T he
pa*it1cip1e”pf tie’1a1tiL_)e..’betel;iS’~ut’)vt._ttt1 -ubsohtte principle but it hits certain
limitations. V”A_4ttd_(>11Ve_0t’. them: is 2). condition p1’eseribed taatder sectiott
12(e) Qt the Act, ‘wrhieh hats; been applied in the facts and circttmstances
“of that whielt is t’he”})t”i11eip1_e on which the zappehttatt seeks to rely
the re.’~’;p0ndent even if treated as the son of the
appett-tnt vw.(.)’tt’tE;.’1’htteeesearély be subject to the etmtlition p1’e:;e:’ibed
‘qL_II}dt’31” :<eeti't§m 1?. (c_). Therefore, the courts below httd verh)eked this
Vp.t'<'.3vi's<i0ttVE)f law which has been foiloweci in the above said judgment
/
substumizxl questicms of law would have to be zamswered in favour
of the appeiiant.
Accordingly, the appczal is aiiowed. fhe –j.Li{§gn1é.”12§$* fix:
courts beiow are set aside. I » ¢ _ ~ ._
sa,’~«~ A %
UV