THAVVA VENKATA PUNNA RAO Vs. TAVVA SRIRAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 98 of 1986 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is the appellant herein. Pending disposal, the first respondent is reported to have died and appellant and second respondent are already on record as legal representatives of first respondent. The suit was one filed for partition of the properties alleging that one Tavva Venkata Subbamma was the wife of the first defendant and during her lifetime first defendant requested the natural parents of the plaintiff to give the plaintiff in adoption. The natural parents of the plaintiff agreed and have given the plaintiff in adoption by handing over him to the first defendant on 10-03-1982, and he was brought to the house of the first defendant. In the meanwhile, Tavva Venkata Subbamma died on 13-01-1983. A formal adoption ceremony took place on 22-05-1983 and a deed of adoption was also executed. Tavva Venkata Subbamma died possessed of two houses and the plaintiff and first defendant are entitled for half share. She also left behind some movable properties. First defendant conveyed one house in favour of his second wife-second defendant. The properties were acquired by the first defendant with the family business and therefore the plaintiff has got all the rights in the suit schedule property for partition.

(2.) The first defendant filed a written statement contending that there was no adoption on 10-03-1982. The plaintiff was brought to the house of the first defendant only to bring him up. Actually the adoption has taken place on 22-05-1982 and it was not valid. The properties are not liable for partition and in the partition with the father, item No. 1 of plaint "A" schedule alone was allotted to the first defendant and it was sold to one K. Veeraiah and thereafter the consideration was used for the construction of the house. There is no ancestral nucleolus. The defendant also claimed that certain of the properties are his self acquired properties and certain of the properties belong to the second defendant as her "stridhana" properties. The adoption being not valid as the plaintiff was aged more than 15 years by the date of adoption and as there was no proper taking and giving the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The court below has framed necessary issues and after considering the evidence on record, accepted the contention of the plaintiff that there was adoption on 22-05-1983 and there is also a custom in the "Vysya" Community where the boy aged 15 years can be validly given in adoption. It was also accepted by the decisions of this court and consequently accepted the customary adoption. Having considered so, the court below found that the adoption was in contravention of Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.