This regular second appeal challenged judgments confirming a redemption decree. The court upheld lower courts' findings that the appellant's predecessor adopted the respondent, disqualifying him from applying redemption rights, and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; substantial questions of law answered in favor of the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2287 OF 2007 (MOR)
BETWEEN:
BOLARINAIKA S/O MAJI CHAIRMAN SANNANAIKA, R/AT MANCHABAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANADAGERE HOBLI , HUNSUR TALUK – 105.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
DEVO BAI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE BHAGAVANTH RAO SINDHE RAMACHANDRA RAO SINDHE S/O LATE BHAGAVANTH RAO SINDHE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT D.NO.28, BAZAAR ROAD, K.R.NAGAR TOWN, DISTRICT MYSORE-571 607.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. V. RAMAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 20.06.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.47/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.1998 PASSED IN O.S. NO.32/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF & JMFC, HUNSUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
Trial Court. It is stated in the plaint that late Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe, mortgaged the scheduled land in favour of the defendant on 24.02.1969 for a sum of Rs.1,500/- and the defendant has been put in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further stated in the plaint that, the plaintiff made a request to the defendant to redeem the mortgage, however, the defendant refused to accept the redemption of mortgage and as such, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 11.03.1995 and same was served on the defendant on 14.03.1995 and since there was no redemption of mortgage, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S. No.32/1995 seeking relief of redemption of mortgate in respect of the scheduled property.
and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant that, schedule property was mortgaged in his favour by late Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe. However, it is stated that, as the defendant is cultivating the schedule property for more than forty years and further the said Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe had executed an agreement of sale dated 23.03.1983 to sell the scheduled property for sum of Rs.8,000/- and accordingly it is
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
contended by the defendant, that the suit for redemption is liable to be dismissed.
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
“(1) Whether the Court below was justified in recording the finding that S. Ramachandra Rao Shinde is adopted son of Devo Bai and Bhagavanth Rao Shinde, having regard to the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act?
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
Head Master of Machabayanahalli Govt. Primary School and he deposed that the said Ramachandra Rao was taken in adoption and by referring to Ex.P16, the name of the father of Ramachandra Rao was shown as Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe. P.W.6 is the Head Master of Government Higher Primary School, K.R. Nagara, referred to Exs. P17 and P18 and deposed that Ramachandra Rao was taken in adoption by late Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe and Devo Bai. P.W.7 - Teacher at Government Higher Primary School, K.R. Nagara, refers to Ex.P19 and deposed about the relationship between Ramachandra Rao and late Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe as that of father and adopted son.
plaintiff. I have also noticed from the findings recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.2 wherein the Trial Court after considering the material on record, particularly with regard to Ex.D3, has rightly come to the conclusion that the alleged agreement of sale (Ex.D3) has not been enforced by the parties to the agreement and therefore the reasons assigned by the Trial Court at paragraph 10 of the impugned Judgment and Decree is just and proper and does not call for interference.
RSA No. 2287 of 2007
analysed the issues on merits rightly and come to the conclusion that Sri. Ramachandra Rao was given in adoption to late Bhagavanth Rao Sindhe and Devo Bai and therefore, I do
not find any merit in the appeal, and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
SD/JUDGE
sac List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court below was justified in finding that the respondent is the adopted son of the original defendant?
Whether the concurrent finding of fact regarding the adoption calls for interference on appeal?
Bolarinaika S/O Maji Chairman Sannaoinaka
Sindhe Ramachandra Rao S/O Late Bhagvanth Rao Shinde
E.S. Inderesh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
