SHRI SIDDEGOWDA Vs. MALLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in R. A. No. 18/85 on the file of the principal District Judge, Mysore, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 41/82 on the file of Civil Judge (JR. Dn ). Nanjangud. The appellant is the third defendant in the suit. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff in alternative seek relief of possession. The plaintiff claims to be the foster daughter of one Siddegowda (Senior) the propositus from whom she has purchased the suit properties under registered sale deed at Ex. P. 1 dated 17. 5. 1972 for valuable consideration of rs. 4000/- Since then claims to be in possession and enjoyment. The Second plaintiff is the husband of the First Plaintiff. In view of the interference with her rights, suit came to be filed. Defendants No. 2 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant. The defendants contend that the propositus Siddegowda had adopted the third defendant Siddegowda (Junior) as his son. The properties are ancestral property, the sale of the property is not for legal necessity or for the family benefit. Therefore would not bind the third defendant who is the adopted son and had become the co-parcener along with the propositus Siddegowda by legal fiction. Therefore, the claim of exclusive title in respect of the Properties is stoutly resisted. Besides several other technical defence contentions are taken.

(2.) THE Trial Court finds that the third defendant has failed to prove the valid adoption in law. Accordingly upholds the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against the defendants to deliver possession. The first appellate court confirmed the finding in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the third defendant. Hence, the second appeal.

(3.) THE judgment and decree of this Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 782/01 remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law.