KANDARI BUCHIAMMA Vs. KANDARI VENKATARAMAN PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of defendant no.1 assails the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska in T.A. No.14/86.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was that K. Fakir Patro married to one Bouri Patrani. Out of their wedlock, two daughters, namely, Ammalu and A. Jogiamma, defendant no.3, were born. After death of first wife, Fakir remarried to K. Buchiamma, defendant no.1. K. Ammalu, defendant no.4, is their daughter. Fakir had no son. Fakir and defendant no.1 wanted to adopt a boy. They requested the natural parents of the plaintiff to give him in adoption, when the plaintiff was one year old. The natural parents of the plaintiff agreed to the same. On the day of Makar Sankranti of the year 1960, Fakir and the defendant no.1 adopted the plaintiff in presence of the relatives and natural parents of the plaintiff. There was giving and taking ceremony. Since the date of adoption, the plaintiff stayed in the house of the adoptive father. Fakir died in the year 1965. The plaintiff used to perform the annual sradha ceremony. After death of Fakir, the defendant no.1 executed a registered deed acknowledging adoption on 6.5.1970. But the consolidation authority illegally recorded the suit land in favour of the defendant no.1. Being emboldened by the ROR, the defendant no.1 created disturbances in his possession of the suit land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit for declaration that he is the adopted son of defendant no.1 and permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from alienating the suit land.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to her, by playing fraud Raghunath, natural father of the plaintiff, had obtained a registered deed, which she came to know to be a deed acknowledging adoption. She cancelled the same. The plaintiff is not her adopted son. The consolidation authorities held that the plaintiff is not her adopted son. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of the consolidation authorities before the Director of Consolidation. The appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff had not challenged the order of the Director of Consolidation in any higher forum. The order of the consolidation authorities attained finality. The plaintiff has no right over the suit land.