In this second appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit, the court held that the appellant's adoption was invalid because he was over 15 years of age at the time, contrary to Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without merit.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
S.A.No.16 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dt.30-09-2016 in A.S.No.67 of 2010 of the VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narasapur confirming the judgment and decree dt.21-10-2009 in O.S.No.59 of 2005 of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasapur.
MSR,J S.A.No.16 of 2017
2
sale deed, dt.20-02-1964. According to him, after such purchase, Annapurnamma and his sister along with the respondents were residing in the said premises and that Annapurnamma passed away in 1965. He contended that he and Dhanalakshmi succeeded to the properties of Annapurnamma, but he was employed in Chennai and other places and he ultimately retired from service and settled at Mogultur. He alleged that 1st respondent got executed a Will, Ex.B-1 dt.26-06-1963 in his favour when the appellant was away from Mogultur, Dhanalakshmi passed away subsequently and her share devolved on the respondents. He also contended that the respondents set up Ex.B-2 dt.10-08-1964, a codicil, allegedly executed by Annapurnamma bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of Dhanalakshmi and that Dhanalakshmi, executed Ex.B-3, a registered Will dt.02-03-1983 bequeathing the properties to respondent Nos.2 and 3, but the said codicil is a forged one. He contended that the respondents were not cooperating for the partition of property and so he filed the suit.
MSR,J S.A.No.16 of 2017
3
1. Whether the adoption deed dt.25-06-1963 is
a true, valid and binding on the defendants? (This issue was recasted as per orders in I.A.No.118 of 2009 in O.S.No.59 of 2005 dt.16-09-2009)
2. Whether plaint schedule property is purchased by Eleswarapu Kasi Annapurnamma vide separate registered sale deed dt.20-02-1964?
3. Whether the Codicil said to be executed by Kasi Annapurnamma dt.10-08-1964 is true, valid and binding?
4. Whether the Will dt.02-03-1983 said to be executed by Murukutta Dhanalakshmi is true, valid and binding?
Additional Issue:-
1. Whether the suit is lilable to be dismissed with exemplary costs?
MSR,J S.A.No.16 of 2017
4
of P.W.2 and held that even his evidence did not support that in Brahmin community, a person who has become a major can be adopted. It held that the appellant did not challenge Exs.B-1 and B-2 till he filed the suit in 2005 and there was nothing unnatural in Annapurnamma giving the property as per Exs.B-1 and B-2 to Dhanalakshmi. It further held that even though Ex.A-1 adoption deed is a registered document, it cannot be treated as valid and an adoption of a person more than 15 years old cannot be valid. It therefore dismissed the suit.
MSR,J S.A.No.16 of 2017
5
MSR,J S.A.No.16 of 2017
6
lower appellate Court when it decided the appeal. However, the purpose for which these documents were sought to be marked was to establish the adoption of the appellant by Annapurnamma. Once it is held by this Court agreeing with the finding of the Courts below that the said adoption is invalid, the non-consideration of these documents by the lower appellate Court makes no material difference to the result of the case.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 10-03-2017 kvr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the adoption of the appellant when he was above 15 years of age is valid under Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Whether the partition suit should be allowed given the invalidity of the adoption deed.
Whether the lower appellate court erred in not considering the additional evidence application filed by the appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant/Plaintiff
Respondents 1 to 3/D-1 to D-3
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
