UGRE GOWDA Vs. NAGEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave filed by the original defendant No. 3 against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No. 1452 of 1995, by which Suit No. 36 of 1988 filed in the Court of Munsiff, K. R. Pet stood decreed.

(2.) The undisputed facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows :- Nagegowda (since deceased) filed the title suit in the Court of Munsiff, K. R. Pet (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the trial Court") seeking a declaration that he was the adopted son of Smt. Sannananjamma (defendant No. 1) and an absolute owner of the suit property based on the deed of adoption-cum-settlement dated 12-7-1984 (Ex. P-1). In the said suit, the deceased-plaintiff contended that defendant No. 1 had adopted him about 23 years back in accordance with the then prevailing customs as she had no son. That since adoption he lived in the family of defendant No. 1 looking after the suit property. In the said suit, the plaintiff relied upon Ex. P-1 executed by defendant No. 1. Under Ex. P-1, the earlier adoption was confirmed and the suit property was stated to have been given to the plaintiff. It was alleged that the suit property was ancestral and in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. That after the plaintiff attained majority, he became the manager; looked after the property and that there was no division in the family properties. In the circumstances, he pleaded that gift deed dated 17-7-1985 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was null and void and without authority of law. The plaintiff further pleaded that consequently defendant No. 3 did not derive title from defendant No. 2. By written statement, adoption and plaintiffs title were denied.

(3.) By judgment and decree dated 29-11-1991 passed by the trial Court, it was held that the adoption was not proved; that it was not according to law and that plaintiff did not acquire any title to the suit property under Ex. P-1, as there was no description nor value of the suit property mentioned therein. The trial Court further held that settlement was not stamped and that there was no evidence of actual delivery of possession. In the circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the suit.