Appeal against dismissal of suit challenging validity of adoption and gift deed. Court upheld adoption despite age exception based on custom and evidence, and validated gift deed dismissing fraud plea due to lack of action by donor for 17 years.
The appeal was dismissed; the gift deed and adoption were deemed valid and binding.
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.
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI
APPEAL SUI T No.1 0 7 4 of 1 9 9 4
JUDGMENT:
Impugning the judgment of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.66 of 1980 dated 27.06.1985, the appellant who is the plaintiff in the lower court, files this appeal on the grounds that the adoption of the respondent/ defendant is against the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act but the Court below did not appreciate the said fact and dismissed the case; the settlement deed was executed by Late Ramachandraiah in favour of the respondent, at the instance of the natural parents of the respondent and under the influence brought upon Late Ramachandraiah; the said settlement deed was never acted upon and nor was it intended to be acted upon; the tenants took possession of the premises from Late Ramachandraiah but not from the respondent, which is a conclusive proof that the settlement deed was never acted upon; the respondent claimed the property under the settlement deed and simultaneously took plea of adverse possession of the said property, which is contradictory to each other; late Ramachandraiah performed the thread ceremony of the appellant, which was agreed even by the respondent; further the respondent and his mother tried for a compromise in view of the entitlement of the appellant to the suit schedule property but the talks were not fruitful; all these facts were submitted before the Court below but the Court below brushed aside the same.
2
3
parties, the case cannot be simply decided in favour of any one side based on the hard situation that arises due to the above stated circumstances. The case cannot be kept pending, as there are no prospects of the situation getting better. It is only after seeing no prospects of any assistance coming from the counsel for the reconstruction of the record, that this case was taken up for decision. The Court can only depend on the judgment of the Court below and consider the undisputed facts, which are mentioned in the judgment and consider the grounds of appeal and decide the case. Fortunately, I have the two documents which form the basis of the case, the notification of the adoption of the defendant and the gift deed under which the suit property was gifted to the defendant.
4
5
property in denial of the legal rights of the true owner. One who holds possession under title or assumed title, derived from another, cannot assert rights adverse to the title of the true owner. Thus, a plea of adverse possession is, in essence, a plea of ouster of title of the owner and the vesting thereof in another. The defendant claims his right through his adoptive father. His case is not that the plaintiff is the true owner of the property. Hence the question of adverse possession does not arise and there is no need to take up any further discussion on adverse possession. One issue is about the relief. The other two issues remain to be the points, to be decided in this appeal, which are as under:
POI NT No.1 :
6
harping upon the same point which was stressed in the Court below, that adoption is not valid as it is beyond the age of 15 years of the defendant, does not extend any argument to overcome the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant to get himself within the purview of the exception in the above provision. Even Late Ramachandraiah is an adopted son to his adoptive father and as can be seen from the judgment, he was also adopted after crossing 15 years of age. Long list of names were given by the witnesses, who spoke on the issue of adoption, who, according to them, were adopted after 15 years of their age. D.W.4, who is the mother of the defendant, stated that Late Ramachandraiah was adopted when he was 17 or 18 years old. The brother of the defendant was also given in adoption when he was 20 years, according to the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 4.
7
evidence of the witness on behalf of the defendant, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below cannot be disturbed. Moreover, Ex.B5, which is a Gazette notification, shows that it was notified that the defendant changed his name as Dontaraju Lalitha Venkata Subrahmanyam, being the adopted son of Dontaraju Ramachandrayya. Hence, all the evidence, which came before the Court below, was in favour of the validity of the adoption of the defendant by Late Ramachandraiah.
POI NT No.2 :
8
deed. The appellant puts forth a strange plea that Late Ramachandraiah requested the plaintiff to take legal action against the defendant stating that the defendant obtained the gift deed by playing fraud and that he would give evidence if plaintiff takes legal action. The dates as regards the said instances are not mentioned. The death of Ramachandraiah was on 08.12.1978. If really, it was executed on the pressure put on Late Ramachandraiah, he had 17 long years, to cancel the said gift deed or initiate any action to get the same cancelled. But he did neither of the two thereby watering down the contention of the appellant that he was requested by Ramachandraiah to take legal action against the defendant with respect to the gift deed. The tenants residing in the suit schedule property were also examined and they had spoken in a manner supporting the execution of the gift deed in favour of the defendant. One clause that was mentioned in the gift deed was also taken into consideration by the Court below in a very right perspective. It was mentioned therein that even if the adoption was not valid, the defendant would still get the rights under the gift deed. It was rightly observed that if Late Ramachandraiah intended to give the property to the defendant, only if adoption was valid, then perhaps the defendant would not have got any rights as adopted son unless the adoption is valid, but when Late Ramachandraiah made settlement of the property on the defendant as an individual, mere describing him as adopted son would not deprive him of the benefits of the gift deed. When the identity of the donee and identity of the property can be made out from the gift deed that would suffice to enforce the gift deed. The description of the defendant as an adopted son of Late Ramachandraiah would at the best turn to
9
be a wrong description, if adoption is not valid, but his identity would still remain unambiguous. Moreover, there is no argument that the donee mentioned in the gift deed is not the defendant.
10
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
__________ T. RAJANI, J
August 24, 2017 DSK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the adoption of the defendant by the deceased was valid given he was over 15 years old.
Whether the registered gift deed in favour of the defendant is valid and binding.
Whether the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant was maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramchandraya's appeal
Respondent/Defendant
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
