IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATE9 THIS THE gm DAY OF FEBRUARY:--20i
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE
REGULAR SECOND No_,9'3¢§/Coir'
REGULAR SECOCNDA§5pi1:1;L&C;g;§;§A570 / 04
BETWEEN:
R.s.A.N0.93'6'/'C14 " C
Ramu E€add1._11 Lé1.m_a1ii, -,
Age: 49 years, ' V I" _ C =
Occ: Agri(:u_1fL1Are' V _
R/0 Utnai, Taluk Bijapnla
., 1 ~ APPELLANT
C if 'a{_ByS1'H1'HSar1jayA. Patil, adv.)
CV _ 1. Ré':ran.aSid:f3ayya Channaveerayya
Muddabihalmath, [deceased by his L.Rs.)
Cfiundayya Revanasiddayya Muddebihalmath,
" 'Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,
1 R/0 Managu1iTa1uk. B. Bagewadi.
flL\j\»\
1.8) Virupakshayya Revanasiddayya
Muddebihalmath, Age: 32 years,
Occ: Agriculture
R/ 0 Managuli
Taluk B. Bagewadi.
1.c) Murugayya Revanasiddayyrg'Mudc1ebifié1IriSE[I1,V " E
Age: 30 years,
Occ: Agriculture
R/0 Managuli _
Taluk B. Bagewadi. " _
1.1)) Neelaganagwwfcl
w/0 Revanasidciayya" M_udc.iebih.a1math,
Age: 63 Years, ..
Occ: Househoid wo_ri;."_V
R/0 Mana_gu1i/W .' ~
Taluk' B.",;11?.a8eWai:li'." ~ _ -V
2. Chandrayfga Revafiasid'dayy'a~Nligddebihalmath.
Occ::.AgriCi11€:;1re'3V.V 'V _ _ -
R/0 Managuli; a r _ ~ _
Taluk Bagewadi'.~
3. Parqtayya Irayya"Cr1imastimath,
n ,_ [Cailing himself age adopted
sofa 0f"}\/Iahatayya Muddebihalmath,
. ' a.g"e46.,y'ea;rs','
'Gee: agfieulfiure,
R0 Managuli,
Ta1uk.--._ B.vBageWadi. RESPONDENTS
' Sri Remesh B. Anneppanavar for C/R2 8: R--1[A-D)
Sri Ravindra Reddy, adv. for R«-3)
*****
//we
K)
R.S.A.NO.1 170/O4
BETVVEEN:
Parutayya Irayya Gumatimath
S / 0 Mahantayyan Muddebihalmath,
Age: about 55 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/0 Manguli, Tq. Basavan Bagewa_d.i.,
Dist: Bijapur.
(By Sri Somnath Reddy and Sri_4Ra\r4i1=1§’Ii’a Re(3.’dy,t ac«ivsi) ” V
AND:
1 . Sri Revanasiddayya « . y
Muddebihalmath, % I ”
Since deceasedy by his__LV.>Rs. V ._ ”
a) Sri Dundi;’1y’y}?z»a:.Reyanasiéldayya’Muddebihalmath
Age: ab’c51;’if4._~¢1£E)v-3#_,é:ars5«.._K ‘
b) Sri”-Vir;;1pa.i§Sii’ayy’»avA’¥{;a§,?:1;1′;asiddayya
Muda:1_eb111alaniafh,” about 38 years.
C) {Sri Révaiaasiddayya
._fN’Mq§1deb1haIr11»at.h’Age: about 36 years.
‘ ;d)” -VSnxt;IV!:urjt1gayya Revanasiddayya
y 1\/i’ud’d§:bi1V1a1math, age: about 70 years.
_ 2. Sfi«.Char1ci«fayya Revanasiddayya Muddebihalmath
Age: ~~ab§>ut 42 years.
. ‘ Aifare 1″/0 Managuli, Tq. Basavan Bagewadi,
‘._District, Bijapur.
aw
3. Sri. Ramu Baddu Lamani,
Age: about 56 years, r/0 Utnal,
Tq: Bijapur. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Ramesh B. Aneppanavar for C/R~2 8: R-1(A;~’D)
Sri Sanjay A Patil, adv. for R-3) V
*****
These Regular Second Appeals are fileczlfi,/. of ‘ _
c.1=>.c. against the Judgment .J’and. z)ectr’sds’:t ddtsd
13/9/2004 passed in RA. No.32′,/03_oj’r1_;, the’Afi1e4ef~._the_f
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Basavan Begewadi, al1ewvir:g”
appeal and setting aside the Judgrrient arid. _Deereet
dated 25/ 1/ 1996 passed in No.25,z8et_snt tidsfiis of
the Addl. Munsiff, B. Bagewadi.W__’
These Regular Seedand eomtng on for
hearing this day, the Court’dei.iXieredp’the.Vfeljowing:
” — f{t._ K 31:’: nf_(} T
‘i’hese*.__4twVox” are directed against the
anddlfiecree dated 13th day of Sept. 2005 in
A”:_VR.tX;No.32/(}3A°passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Basavan
sagswadi; ; t
22. Appellants in these two appeals are defendants
2 and respondents are thejplajntiffs before the
trial Court. In this judgnient; for convenience the
1;)a1’t,i€ss are 1’€’.f€I”1’€’.d to theii’ stratus befora the trial Court.
8. It is the case of planiiiriffs that Comifidri
pmp0sii:o1* Basaiah had two sons by name Maifiaiit;cyyé2 .__’4
and Channaveeiuyya and they are dead_:’P1ai–.r;1i’,i.t”f5
repixtseiit {.113 breincih of Che1.1i=i1aVteter}11yy;i’
cie’1’e1i1da11t c:o1i1i:en’ds E11211. he? £1r’1op€.’éCl’_A .3011 jofvi
Mahani.a.yya. The genea1ogi(:a»l””-I:r’c–<:3 of'."'i'_hi§: fa1"j;'1i}y of
Basaiah is as under:
Me1ha1″1t:215/Ya.,:. ~;;:fi.; bz/’.Q’t.’Vr1e«1″ Charinaver-:r21YYa_
C}u1’aVVa”‘{_wife)’ _ ‘ V» ” (father) Revanasiddayya
{piaimiff No. 1}
.Ii’ayya Chandiappa @ Chandrayya
“‘{;1d0p’i’ad”S&()§3 ]” ”
iii-.~1’en_da’ri:’i*;\a_g.v (plaintiff No.2)
4Z, fAI?1’1e? plaintiffs C.’,()1’1{€311d€d that the schedule
jV.’L;_r0pef’::’ties are the _j0in1_. family propeiiies. The 15*
gicfeiideiiiti Claming to be the adopted 8011 of i\/iahaniayya
J/,\/V’
(3
sold one item of schedule property in favour of 2*”-‘
defendaint. and t:he1*ef0re the is not binding on
them. The alleged adoption of 15’ ciefendant is bogus.
c:or1e0ct.ed and invalid in law. ‘I”he1’ef0re, the §)}29,’}viv1″V1′:E’.’ifl’»’é.Z,’
filed the suit to declare them as the 0w:1e1*s.–§:;)i'”
schedule properties and for perpeti1_i_a.} ,i_1″1ju1fi'(5ti()*ri}”ii} the
al;ter1’1a.iiive {he plaintiffs have p1’é:iyeL*1j’*fi*)r iip2i1’ti’t.iei1.70? if
their 1/2, share in the plaint. sctizedule properties.
5. The defezradarits.ent’e1jec’..2ip15eara1″1e.e’before the
trial Court and filed sepeiifate ‘-V.}1″::Vt1.€f’i”I.’_ sLa’ii–“”d_e’feiida11i’. under a registered
adop1:i§j1’i 2×1/E;/1976. Since 1*” ciefeiidam is
50% share in the plaint schedule
1;>”‘rr_)p-i=_:_i’i;.ic’3’.:~:{‘”1i.3’2;1s»V.i:s<'i'id one item and therefore the same is
.vaiidI"— T'1ier:'2"*' defendant eonte11ds that he is the
'Epomifidy'"purcl*1aser for vaiuabie c0nside_rai'ior1 of one
_' plaim schedule property and the same is valid.
On. these groiirids the defendants opposed the claim of
plaintiff's. 011 the basis of pleadings the trial Court
framed the following issues and additional issues:.
E. Wli'1ei;he1' the plaintiffs prove that
the suit properties are joint family ll
p1'Op€:1'ti€S of deceased Mahantayya £il']_'L"l;V– ll
Chaiiaveerayya'? ll
2. Does T.l’1e defeiid:;-1i’1ti:TN0?’ pi’Qv’eAs ”
that, he the lawful . 2 ll
p1.1reh.asei’ of suit
N0.25l9 for valua.ble_e6i<1:s'id_eraii()nl_ief
Rs.20.000/– fm;ii;def.%§i1.;:_an:e_._V_p:§5;2? V
3. Whether the
-. Wh it id-ecrree’?
Add[i–i: _l()i7] al issu e 1′ A
1. the plaintiffs fui’i:.hei’
the defei1da.i’1i’ No.1. is not
‘v;5{clsr_>i_3v.i_ed son of deceased Gurubai
a1’1(ixs:’i_i.l:*j’e adopticm deed is bogus and
«W
l . 1;3Qt.’bil’1diI’1g on them’?
Before the trial Court plaintiffs examined six
witnesses as P.W. I to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P«1 to
13-9. The defendants examined six witriesses
to ll).W.6 and g(>t marked Ex.D–1 to D~11.
7. The trial Court after hearing the a1’gL.:,:ij’e:ieit’s:’and
on appreciat’i0n of pleadings. oral jandv ‘d§3.t?.t£r11en’t.et1’yA1.1f
evidence held that l~’=’* deleridant is the” 1
Guravva the wife of Mal1a11tayy*3;;..V1″lThe séiielof one “item
of plaint. sChedt:’1e pr0}§e*«1ft;y _b;’-J d;efer’1dz3h1~.iN().l in favour
(>l”cle{‘e11datnt:’ l\l0.2ai.s vali.d–.~–vflcaneequeritly;the trial Court
deereeda_ t.he_lAplvi:–;i11t:.i§?fs –.,si;:«it. in part for pa1’t’.it’.i01’1 vide
“]’1.IC1gi’I1€TI1″‘.’Cl§}.lf.E?’Cl 1995. Aggrieved by this
Jtldgniierite. ()’flt:l’1e”t.1*izii Court’. the [Jl8.i1′]l’.iffS filed an
eijatieéil the lower appellate Court: in RA.
l\i”‘<)..LT3~l'._2_/1 1034}.?l'ter*"l1ea1'i1ig a1*gurnen1'.s the lower appellate
V _ C0ur'1':–E'1'ehied"lt.l1e following points for its conside1'at.i0n.
1 1. Wl1et.he1' the AppellantS/plaintiff
prove that. the adoption deed dated
21/12/1978 adoptirig defer1dant. No.1
glee
9
by Gurubai is concoctted, invalid and
same not binding on them?
2. W’het.her the appellants prove that
the affirmative filldings recorded by the
lower court on issue No.2 is erroneous
and legally not ssustainable’?
3. Whether this (:ou1’t in view__l”o~tf.
exe1*cissmg powers U/
required to frame the
point of limitation aaf1d«–._give2
4. Whethe 1? ~ ‘I’: her ” “J lafid V
Decree of the lower any
iI1teri’e1’e_t1-ate l:>y,t’.l’1″i~:-} :C(iu1’_E7?_l K V
8. =C()urt on re~appreciatio11 of
the ehtire n’rat.eV1Afial.7′()1Ar’-reteord held that the ac.loptio_11 of
registered adoption deed dated
in view of the bar u_1’1der Sc->(~t.lO (iv)
of A tile. Adoption and Maimenarlce Act.
:C91’f1seqL:Vehtly, the lower appellate Court allowed the
._a’ppea’.l, set, aside the Judgment of the trial Court and
a\~’*
H)
deacreed the suit of plaintiffs declaring them as l’,1’l€;’.
absolute owners of plaint schedule properties. d_ireCted
the defendants to hand over possession of some_’of_”‘t1’1t:_
S(2l’1€tdLl1t’? p1’oper’r,ics. He1aoe. these two s<::co11di_
by the defendam.s.
9. This Court Vida order
adxzlitoting HIE”-_’St’. two 21ppe.211s””‘~~fran1éd__ Vi'”‘oV14I(‘m*1″1’1g
s1s.1bs1:a1’1tia1 qm:és’r.i<_)n of law:
"\Nhethe1'
2:1pp<:11aI.'r;f' Cr4:.){.':'1"VI'-it .fs,§r»s3;'sing' the
by the
:R§',ria1* Cc»)é;t.1*t_»1:'a1jCi»_:fiie_<:re'eing the suit of
t.h::'~:_. 41)1e1ii1I1=i«ff:is :_éo_'1:oii.t*'.211'y to mat.eria] on
rce\/ laid down by the
}i:{:c3:1_’%)l_e AAS’L1vp1rsr11c> Court in AER 1991 SC.
+1 1.80}? ~– V _
“._””‘.._i0x.”«f?ie_a1’§i” Iea1’n<:?d advocates on both side and
— perulsed “f:he”é11t.ire appeal papers.
” 1. ‘Tl’1e 1’e]at.ic):r1ship laeiweeri the plaintiffs and 15’-
-.Tf.-c1efe11da11l is not in dispute. It also not in dispute
d~\,~,\_,,_/’xv
iii) ———- —
iv) he 01* she not Completed the
age of fifteen years. unless there is a
Cust.0rr1 or usage applicable” to the
parties which permits persons whQ~~–” ‘V
have completed the of fiftieen
being taken in adoption.
12. The Supreme C0″L,ir’t–~….0f
RAMA PAP/{L VS. NA_RA__YAN 1991
SC 1180 while i11t,e1’pref’iii§–Se{j[‘§.C1′ §i*Vii:;1i’§A;:ti held that a
eu_s’L0m judicieillyié’ iiiliaiie proved in
subseqtieriwf Judge of this
Court iii”-SiiI:RI Vs. SMT. MALLAMMA AND
.OTHERS i’e'[i5(3r1_ed:Vi’11 Kar. 1648 held that the
’12.eee’e:§’it.y-eiiioI7ggleaieiifigkind proof of custom in eveiy
l’ the privy Council by law
{here is a Custom amongst the sudras to
‘adopt 21 bfjy who is aged above 15 years.
d\. \,Jm
the Act. came into force and also subsequent to the Act.
came into force the judicial pronouncement recognised
in the old Bombay State custom and usage
a person above the age of 15 years”. InH__vlewfof. “thisf
judicial recognition of the custom and. “‘1[1s1age:’–ir}_VO’ld
Bombay State it is not r1ecessa_ry inC’subseq11el1’1t,.”cases to V’
plead and prove the very sarnrzd’ c_ust.om “and Lrsage of
adopting 3. child who is l:[‘.Il.O1’_”€ §;h,9c’1ra,_ l_5«.years age a1’isir1g
from the very same The loWer.’j_appellat,e Court
without of ithe ‘matter committed an
error in _t.l’:e’V’2jd.o;otiol§1 deed Ex.D~7 is invalid
in View C’ Sec.lO {iv} of the Act.
‘i’herefore,’—. V.{‘ir1ldi_rtg,:_l’.t)l’ the lower appellate Court is
to seAt”‘a.s_ide. The question of law framed above
_ “is 31.13%-1:eld’ a-ff’1rma.t.ively.
=§l4′.v ‘Sri Ramesh B. Anneppanavar, learned counsel
” for t.lie pla’1I1tiffs relying on two decisions of this Court.
reoort.ed in MR 1972 Kar 73 and ILR 2008 Kar 1667
c%V””
contends that in the absence of pleadings and proof of
custom the adoptiori deed Ex.D-7 is to be held as
invalid in the eye of law. There is no dispuvtetfnrith
regard to the legal preposition that p1eadi1igs;”ai’iTd_~..prooi*.A
is necessary in support. of t.he Custom~v—-o1f’:”~L:.s-age 2
spe(:i;I’ied in sub. see. {iv} of See. ofihie ‘jti:d_iVei.al.A
p1’OE’10lI1’1C€”;f11E3I1lZ has reeogni’se__d a aparxtieulg-if”g;L1st.or11 or
usage in a comriiuriity or in afigroyiriee,’ it need not be
necessarily pleaded ai°id:”proyed iri”Vsfuh’sequent. disputes.
This is the law laid down. Court in the
ease of and this Court. in
is not in dispute that the
parties iI1’t.l;1e-ins~taAI:.t” §~i.t~igat.io1i are from a place which
part u’o{…_____r_)ld Bombay State. The judicial
‘ pi’o1ioL:ii.1eef11eiit held that in the province of old Bombay
State a custom and usage to adopt a child who
is morethaii 15 years of age. Therefore, the decisions
on by t.he learned Counsel for plaimiffs will not be
of any use to them.
16
For the reasons st.a{.ed above, the following:
ORDER
“[3165:-se. two appeals h(:1je’_0y aI1″c5w’éfc_1., j’I7h.e_ V
impuggxled J1,.1dgn1e,m: and I)ecreé~,
RA No.32/O3 passed by Ciw;_Iv”‘J;..1dg’é”~{S1″..I)1}.’)’Afiéisafistlaa ” %»
Bagewadi is he-reby Tlge ;HEL71fgH1f3EI1T and
Decrme of the trial vA.’,A1:\.?c)..v25/86′ dated
25/I/3996 pz1s§L~.cu1′ Basavana
Bagevwufli E? %@¥§i$f ?駧rn@éd aura }es:ored (H1 fik:
Parties V ii%%ld,f" LEUDGE