SHIVARAM REDDY Vs. SANGAREDDY ALIAS SANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for determination in this Revision Petition which has been filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 138 of 1958 on the file of the Second Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is whether the learned Judge was right in ordering the deletion of issue No. 4, which was one of the eleven, issues settled by him on 22nd January, 1962, on the ground that it was unnecessary for the disposal of the suit. Issue No. 4 related to the truth and Validity of the first defendant's adoption and was framed thus : "Whether Siddamma adopted the first defendant to her husband Mukund Reddy ? If this was true, whether it is Valid in law ? " Before considering this question, it would be useful to refer at the outset to the releVant provisions relating to the framing of issues. Order 14, Civil Procedure Code, provides inter alia for the settlement of issues and the Rules material for the present purpose are the following :-

(2.) The effect of the above provisions is that, issues are to be framed in respect of those propositions which have been alleged by one party and denied by the other ; but they must, however, be confined to material points, i.e., the points on which the right decision of the case depends. For purposes of the instant case it is of particular relevance that material propositions are not only those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue but also those propositions- of law or fact which a defendant must allege to make out his defence. (Vide sub-rule (2) of rule 1). It is equally important to bear in mind that sub-rule (3) of rule I lays down that it is incumbent on the Court to frame a distinct issue in respect of every material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Bearing the above principles in mind, the question that falls for determination is whether the lower Court was justified in holding that Issue No. 4 had been wrongly framed and had therefore to be struck out.

(3.) The material facts, as they appear from the pleadings, are as follows : One Mukund Reddy, who was admittedly the proprietor of the suit estate which comprised Crown grant lands, died in 1918 issueless leaving behind him his widow, Siddamma. The latter adopted one Amareshwar Rao in 1928 and applied to H.E.H. the Nizam for approval of the adoption. Amareshwar Rao married Sharada Bai (the 2nd defendant in the present suit), but he died in 1941 isSueless. It would appear that by the time Amareshwar Rao died, the approval sought for the adoption of Amareshwar Rao by Siddamma, had not been granted. According to the plaintiff Amareshwar Rao had given authority to the and defendant to adopt a boy of her choice and she adopted the plaintiff in the year 1944.