TIRKANGAUDA MALLANGAUDA KASHIGAUDAR Vs. SHIVAPPA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the property of Shidlingappa alias Shidalingangouda Kenchanagauda, the watandar patil of Chelgeri in Dharwar District. In 1921 he adopted the defendant, who is the son of his sister Maralshiddavva, and died on March 17, 1926. But for the adoption his heirs would be his nearest agnates Naganagauda, Ujjanagauda and Chanabasappa. Out of these three, only Naganagauda and Ujjanagauda filed this suit for possession of Shidalingappa's property together with Rs. 900 as past mesne profits, future mesne profits and costs, alleging that the defendant's mother Maralshiddavva had been deserted by her husband Basappa, that she led an unchaste life, that the defendant was born to her of an adulterous inter course, that his father was unknown, that as he and his mother had been excommunicated from the Lingayat community, he could not be legally adopted, and that his adoption by Shidlingappa was illegal and invalid.

(2.) THE defendant replied that his mother had not been deserted by her husband Basappa and was not unchaste, that he was the legitimate son of Basapipa by Maralshiddavva, that he and his mother were never excommunicated, that Maralshiddavva had a right to give him in adoption, that the plaintiffs themselves were present at his adoption and took part in it, that his adoption was legal and valid, that the suit was time-barred under Article 118 of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, that it was time-barred also under Article 142 or 144, since Shidlingappa had relinquished all his right, title and interest in the property in his favour on April 24, 1922, and since then he was in possession of it as its exclusive owner, that the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the factum and validity of his adoption and that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Shidlingappa.

(3.) MARALSHIDDAVVA admits that she lived with her husband for five or six years after her marriage and then returned to her brother Shidlingappa at Chelgeri. She never went back to her husband thereafter but lived with Shidlingappa. So out of paternal affection for her he brought up the defendant and took him in adoption though he must have known that he was her illegitimate son. The factum of the adoption is not disputed in this Court. Being the watandar patil of the village, Shidlingangauda must have been wielding some influence and no one then questioned the propriety of his action. The parties are Lingayats and the Lingayat community accepted the defendant as Shidalingangauda's adopted son. There is no substance in the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant and his mother were excommunicated. There is sufficient evidence to show that they are still treated as respectable members of the Lingayat community. The defendant was given diksha by a Lingayat Mathastha, his wife comes of a good Lingayat family and is related to plaintiff No.2, Lingayat Ayyas and Bankars go to his house for dinner and he is invited on auspicious occasions and given his babs and haks. As stated by the witness Andaniswami, even an illegitimate child can be given diksha and admitted into the Lingayat religion. Thus it is clear that the defendant and his mother are still Lingayats and not outcastes.