SIDDAMMA Vs. RAYANAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant before the trial Court is the appellant herein and she is aggrieved by the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and declaring that the plaintiff is also entitled to half share in the suit properties and the appellant herein has been restrained from receiving the compensation amount to the extent of said half share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. The trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he be declared as the absolute owner of the entire suit schedule properties and to receive the compensation in respect of the said properties. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 180/1989 praying the trial Court that he be declared as the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties in S. Nos. 76 and 120 having panchayath numbers 35, 36 and 37 and for the compensation in respect of the same following the suit schedule properties having been acquired in connection with Upper Krishna Project. The basis for the said claim made by the plaintiff is that he was the adopted son of he appellant herein and the adoption took place in the year 1975 after the death of ninganagowda, husband of the appellant herein and, therefore, by virtue of the said adoption having taken place and the adoption deed also mentioning that the adopted son will have all the rights in respect of the properties of the adoptive father, the plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to be declared as the owner of the entire suit schedule properties and consequently to receive the compensation in respect of the said properties. The said suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the appellant herein, who is the adoptive mother, by contending that, following the death of her husband ninganagowda in the year 1975, only the appellant and Yamanawa, her mother-in-law, were left behind and while they were in a state of great shock and grief, the father of the first plaintiff took advantage of the said situation and forced the appellant to take the respondent-plaintiff in adoption and, therefore, there is no adoption as such in the eye of law and the plaintiff had also instituted a similar suit earlier in O. S. No. 106/1980 and the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and on all these grounds, the appellant sought for dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff-1.

(3.) THE pleadings to the above effect led the trial Court to frame four issues and one additional issue and the learned judge of the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the appellant herein has failed to establish that the first plaintiff is not her adopted son and answered the other two issues concerning plaintiffs claim as full owner of the suit properties and for injunction in the negative and answered the additional issue by holding that the suit filed was not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit in O. S. No. 106/1980 and consequent to these findings, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed giving rise to an appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs before the lower appellate court in R. A. No. 107/2001.