SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O REVAPPA BHAKARE, DIST: GULBARGA, RAMESH S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA BHAKARE, DIST: GULBARGA, CHANDRAKANT S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA BHAKARE, DIST: GULBARGA AND SURESH S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA BHAKARE, DIST: GULBARGA Vs. SANGAMESHWAR ADOPTED S/O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is by the defendants 1 to 4 in OS No 116 of 2003, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Aland (originally numbered as OS No 378 of 2001, on the file of Addl Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Gulbarga, which had been later transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), At Aland and renumbered as OS No 116 of 2003), and directed against the judgment and decree dated 19 -10 -2005 passed in the suit, a suit for partition of joint family properties and the plaintiffs, numbering two - mother and her adopted son - together having claimed half share in the suit schedule properties and the suit having been decreed in terms of the prayer in the plaint, though some minor variations regarding the inter se sharing amongst the plaintiffs and the 19th defendant, who is the daughter of second plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in their respective ranks in the suit.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4, who had contested the suit and who are heirs of the brother of the husband of the second plaintiff, who had instituted the suit in her status as widow of one Chandanna Bhakare and defendants 1 to 4 being grandchildren of Revappa Bhakare - brother of Chandanna. Defendants 1 to 4 have contended that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is not sustainable in law; that there have been errors of not only questions of law but also the manner in which evidence on record has been appreciated; that when there was basic dispute even with regard to the status of the second plaintiff to be the widow of Chandanna - a member of the joint family - and further dispute as regards the first plaintiff being the adopted son of second plaintiff and more so when the first plaintiff at the time of adoption in the year 2001, even as claimed by the plaintiffs, was much more than 15 years of age and therefore the trial court could not have accepted it as a valid adoption in the wake of the provisions of Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 [for short, the Adoption Act]; that even when the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share at all in the joint family properties of Revappa and Chandanna, the trial court decreeing the suit is a grave error in law and therefore calls for interference, appeal is to be allowed and the suit dismissed etc.

(3.) THE following family tree gives a better picture of the relationship of the parties as claimed by the plaintiffs: