AMARA SATYANARAYANA Vs. MAJETI AMARA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Srinivas Emani, counsel representing the appellant and sri M. Krishna Mohan Rao, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) THIS Court on 1. 4. 1999 made the following order: "admit in view of the substantial questions raised in Ground Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 14. " the said Grounds are as hereunder :

(3.) SRI Srinivas Emani, the learned counsel representing the appellant would submit that the Court of first instance made an elaborate judgment recording appropriate findings and when the adoption is not valid, the appellant/plaintiff is bound to succeed. The learned Counsel also would contend that the evidence which had been let in by the respondent/defendant would not establish the alleged custom in Vysya Community and the appellate Court totally erred in reversing the well considered judgment of the Court of first instance. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this court to the oral evidence available on record and would maintain that the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent/ defendant i. e. , D. W. 2 to D. W. 6, simply deposed that even in cases where the adoptions were made though age barred, they had been in fact regularized and accepted by the community. The Counsel would maintain that this would not satisfy the requirement of establishing the ingredients of a valid custom so as to save the validity of adoption from the rigorous condition of age bar. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that the standard of proof required in establishing the custom even in the light of Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act had not been discharged. Hence, viewed from any angle, the appellant is bound to succeed.