DEVAKKA FAKIRRADDI KONNARADDIYAVAR Vs. GIRADDI RAMARADDI KONNARADDIYAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question argued in this appeal is whether defendant 1 is the adopted son of one Fakirraddi Bhimaraddi. The facts giving rise to the suit from which this appeal arises may be shortly stated.

(2.) ONE Fakirraddi Bhimaraddl was a resident of Siddapur in the Dharwar District. He was the owner of the property in suit. He married one Kamalawa, who is the present plaintiff, in or about the year 1936. Prom the plaintiff Fakirraddi had two daughters. In the beginning of 1944, he took one Somavva as his second wife. In November 1944, Fakirraddi was taken ill. He was suffering from fever and he died on 38th December 1944 soilless leaving him surviving his mother Yellavva, two widows, Kamalawa and Somavva, and two daughters who are present appellants. It is the case of the 1st defendant that he had been adopted by Fakirraddi on 12-12-1944 and his case further is that his widow, Kamalawa, executed in his favour a deed of adoption on 28-12-1944. The plaintiff, Kamalawa, disputed the factum of adoption and also disputed the fact that she had executed in favour of the 1st defendant a deed of adoption on 28-12-On the same day, that is, 28-12-1944, Kamagave information to the village officers asking that as defendant No. 1 was the adopted son of Fakirraddi, his name should be entered in the Govt. record. This is disputed by the plaintiff who says that she gave no such vardi or information. On 23-1-1945, the plaintiff. Kamalawa gave another vardi stating that her husband, Fakir-raddi, died on 18-12-1944, that he had no male issue and that she being the direct heir, her same should be entered in the Record of Rights. There was then an Inquiry and the inquiry resulted in favour of the 1st defendant whose name was entered in the Govt. record. This was in or about August 1945.

(3.) ON 24-8-J945, the mother Yellavva, the widow, Kamalawa, and one Ningappa filed suit No. 262 of 1945 against four persons including the present defendant No. 1, who was defendant. No. 2 in that suit and the present defendant No. 2 who was defendant No. 1 in that suit and two others, claming a declaration that defendant No. 2, that is, the present defendant No. 1 was not the adopted son of Fakirraddi and they claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from Interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment cf the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit, granting the plaintiffs a declaration that the present defendant No. 1 was not the adopted son of Fakirraddi. This was in October 1946. It appears that there was from this decree an appeal in the District Court and the appellate Court remanded the proceedings to- the trial Court for a fresh hearing and upon the fresh hearing the learned Judge of the Court below dismissed that suit on 51-3-1950.