GURUNATHA BHATTA Vs. NADIGA NAGESHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Appellant for a declaration of his title to and possession of a piece of land and a house. The plaintiff's case was that these suit properties and others belonged to one Gundabhatta who died on 11-6-37 leaving behind him a widow Shakambaramma and without any issue male or female. Shakambaramma had duly adopted the plaintiff on 20-6-1938 and had also executed a registered deed of adoption of the same date to evidence it. Thereby the plaintiff had become entitled to all the properties movable and immovable of the deceased Gundabhatta. He learnt that Shakambaramma had, prior to the adoption, gifted away the suit properties to the defendant by a registered deed of gift dated 24-5-1938 and he was in possession under the gift. The plaintiff was not bound by that gift which was wholly beyond the powers of the write make and, as his own rights as adoptive must be deemed to have accursed as from the date of Gundabhatta's death, he was entitled to have that alienation declared void and of effect and to recover possession of the properties.

(2.) The defendant admitted the adoption. His pleaded that he was also a close relation to Gunadabhatta who had brought him up to infancy and protected him and had express his desire that the suit properties should to him. In accordance with such wish, widow Shankambaramma, who became their (sic) and absolute owner after his death, had gifted those properties in his favour and the same was binding on the plaintiff as his adoption was admittedly after the gift.

(3.) The Munsiff of Davangere, in who Court the suit was filed, considerate that those pleadings the suit could be disposed without recording any evidence, and dismissed the suit after hearing arguments. He upheld the defendant's plea that as the adoption of the plaintiff was admittedly subsequent to the gift in favour of the defendant, the same way binding on the plaintiff and could not be questioned by him. The Subordinate Judge of Chitaldrogg, on appeal, affirmed that decision.