PUSHPA N.V. Vs. GOPALA KRISHNA BADIGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned petition is filed by the legal heirs of one Malleshappa feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2-The President of Taluka Panchayat wherein the resolution in favour of petitioners vide Annexure-B is set aside and respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat is directed to mutate the name of respondent No.1 on the ground that he is adopted son of Malleshappa.

(2.) The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed on two counts. Firstly, the president of Taluk Panchayat cannot preside over a mutation proceedings as the Appellate Authority vests with Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, who is competent authority to entertain appeal by aggrieved persons. Therefore, the order passed by the President of Taluka Panchayat is non est in the eye of law and same is liable to be set aside for want of authority.

(3.) Even on merits, respondent No.1 is claiming to be the adopted son of Malleshappa while petitioners, being grandchildren of Malleshappa are claiming to be his legal heirs and accordingly, resolution is passed by respondent No.4-Gram Panchayath, thereby mutating names of the petitioners. The status of respondent No.1 as adopted son has to be decided by competent Civil Court and in the absence of adoption deed, as contemplated under Sec. 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the authorities cannot effect mutation based on mere bald declaration claiming to be as adopted son. The status of respondent No.1 has to be decided and adjudicated by competent Civil Court. Even on this count also the impugned order under challenge is not at all sustainable.