ERAMMA Vs. MUDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THE point in dispute amongst the parties to this appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High court of Mysore pertains to the adoption of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Muddappa. Muddappa who was the natural born son of Gauge Gowda (Jr.) and his second wife Ramamma (defendant No. 2) and according to him, was adopted by Eramma (Sr.) as a son to her deceased husband Chenne Gowda (Sr.). THE fact as well as the validity of the adoption were denied by the defendant Eiramma (Jr.) who was defendant No. 5 to the suit and by her brothers Purade Gowda and Nanjunde Gowda who were defendants 6 and 7 to the suit heing donees from her of property belonging, to the family THE relationship between the parties to the suit would be apparent from the following genealogy which is set out in the plaint: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_1137_AIR(SC)_1966Image1.jpg</IMG> It is common ground that Channe Gowda (Sr.) died some time in the year 1911 leaving behind him his widow Eramma (Sr.) but without leaving any male issue. It is said that he had left daughters, one of whom died shortly after his death but the other probably is still alive. According to the plaintiff he was adopted by Eramma (Sr.) on 22/09/1950. But the deed of adoption which was executed on that very day was registered on 31/10/1959. After the adoption, however, Eramma (Jr.) the 5th defendant executed a deed of gift in favour of her brothers; Purande Gowda and Nanjunda Gowda, defendants 6 and 7/09/1950 whereunder she conveyed the joint family property which at family partition the year 1940 bad been allotted to her share. THE plaintiff being a minor, instituted a suit on Decembers, 1950 for a declaration of his statue as a validly adopted son of the deceased Channe Gowda <PG>1139</PG> (Sr.), through his next friend, his adoptive mother Eramma (Sr.). THE plaint alleged that even though several demands were made to deliver possession of half of the joint family property to which the plaintiff was entitled, the defendants did not deliver it to him. He, therefore, claimed a partition of the joint family property, possession of his half share therein and mesne profits.