LALITAVVA Vs. HOISALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent and respondents 3 and 5 though served are unrepresented.

(3.) It is contended that the first son of late Doddamallappa, namely Doddirappa and his wife died living behind two sons, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein, to succeed to their estate. Further, the second son of late Doddamallappa also died leaving behind his wife, who is plaintiff No.1 in the original suit before the Court below and appellants 1 to 4 and respondent No.5 to succeed to his estate. In the said suit also, the plaintiffs have contended that there was no adoption in their family and that the defendant No.1 is not the adopted son of the 1st plaintiff and her husband. Hence, prayed the Court to declare that the said adoption is null and void and no adoption ceremonies had taken place and apart from that plaintiffs have also contended that the 5th defendant and plaintiffs became the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties after the death of Sannairappa by inheritance. The plaintiffs also contended that the alleged adoption deed dtd. 7/11/1992 is not binding on them.