GUMMALAPURA TEGGINAMATADA KOTTURUSWAMI Vs. SETRA VIRAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 26th November 1945 in O. S. No. 39 of 1943. The suit was filed on behalf of all the reversioners by the appellant, Gummalapura Tegginamatada Kotturuswami head of the Lingayat Teginamutt at Kampli, claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the estate of his natural brother, Setra Kari Virappa, given away in adoption, for a declaration, that the adoption of Kotrabasayya, the second defendant, on 11th October 1942, by Setra Viravva, the first defendant and widow of Kari Virappa, was invalid, as not being in conformity with the will of Kari Virappa, Ex. P. 2 (a) dated 10th October 1920 and on other grounds and not binding on the plaintiff and the other reversioners. The estate is worth about a lakh of rupees. Setra Kari Virappa was given in adoption to one Virappa Devaru and this was referred to in Verappa Devaru's will,' Ex. P. 1, dated 4th February 1899. That adoption also had been contested, but unsuccessfully. Kari Virappa died on 23rd October 1920. He had been a 'Pattadhikari' or head of the Lingayat Tegginamutt before the plaintiff. By a curious custom in that 'mutt', as well as in many other similar Lingayat 'mutts' in Bellary district, a small boy is made the 'Pattadhikari' when he is a minor, and he puts on yellow robes; but when he attains majority, he may decide to marry and then can resign the 'pattadhikariship' to his nominee, marry and raise a progeny. The consequence is that his rights of inheritance in his family, whether natural or adopted, do not cease, as in the case of an ordinary Hindu 'Sanyasi' who becomes civilly dead, on assuming the yellow robes. The evidence of P. W. 13, a 'Pattadhikari' of a similar type, and of other witnesses, and the documentary evidence in the case proved this fully.

(2.) The important clauses relevant for our purpose in Ex. P. 2(a), Kari Virappa's will, are in Paras. 3 and 14. In Para. 3, Kari Virappa said:

(3.) On 18th September 1942, the first defendant entered into an ageeement, Ex. D-25, with the natural father of the second defendant for the adoption of the second defendant by her, On 11th October 1942 she took the boy in adoption. But the adoption deed Ex. D-26 was executed only on 23rd June 1943. No invitation card was issued for the second adoption or a photograph taken on the occasion. The reason given by the first defendant's counsel in the lower Court was that, as the first boy, taken in adoption after the invitation card and photo, died prematurely, it was not considered proper to invite another stroke of fate by following a similar procedure regarding the second boy; the lower Court accepted that argument, in view of the superstitions prevalent in the country side regarding such matters. D.Ws. 1 to 5 and 7 swore that the prior approval of P. W. 10 the only surviving original trustee was taken for this adoption also, and that P. W. 10 attended the adoption with his wife, as on the previous occasion. P. W, 10, of course, denied this also; but the lower Court disbelieved his statement on oath and held that he roust have approved the adoption and attended the ceremony with his wife as before.