(1.) This letters patent appeal arises from the judgment of a learned single judge in A.S.No. 477/1980 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No. 73/1976 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of suit A & B schedule properties into two equal shares and allottment and possession of one share in his favour.
(2.) The suit was laid on the averments that the appellant was the adopted son of the defendant and her husband Agaiah, the adoption having taken place on 3-6-1962. He pleaded that his marriage was solemnized by the adoptive parents on 30-1-1963, that he and his wife lived for a period of eight months with the adoptive parents and that thereafter as disputes arose between the defendant and his wife, he had to leave the house. The adoptive father died on 2-2-1976. It was also averred in the plaint that a panchayat was held before the Vyshya Sangham-the parties belong to Vyshya community-and the Sangham gave an award on 20-11-1964 to the effect that the plaintiff and his adoptive parents should live together and that the properties of the family should not be alienated by the adoptive father. The suit properties consist of A and B schedules. A Schedule property consists of two houses. One of the suit properties, house bearing municipal door No. 10-5-486, situated inNizamabad was alleged to have been sold by the adoptive father. B schedule property consists of moveable properties viz., golden and silver ornaments etc. The suit was instituted on 22-4-1976. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was asserted that no adoption had taken place. The plaintiff was a stranger and he had no manner of right whatsoever for a share in the plaints schedule properties. She also pleaded that the properties were self acquired properties of her husband Agaiah.
(3.) We should mention in this context that one more suit O.S. 18/74 was also instituted by plaintiff against his adoptive parents seeking a declaration that he was the adopted son. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was delivered. In O.S. 18/74 apart from issue No. 1 viz., whether the plaintiff was taken in adoption by the defendants and the same was binding on the defendants, a specific issue-issue No.2-was framed in the following terms: "Whether the plaintiff has any right in the suit moveable and immoveable properties"?