MALLANGOUDA LINGANGOUDA PATIL Vs. DUNDAPAGOUDA MALLANGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate litigation, and in my opinion the lower Courts have not appreciated the principles of law applicable to the case, and have not approached it from a proper point of view.

(2.) The plaintiff brought this suit for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Mallangowda, the deceased husband of defendant No. 3, and that therefore he was the owner of the properties mentioned in the plaint. He also asked for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from taking possession of the suit properties in execution of a decree obtained by him in a previous suit against defendant No. 3 as the widow of her deceased husband. It may be mentioned that defendant No. 1 had filed a suit against Mallangowda, During the pendency of the suit Mallangowda died, and after his death defendant No. 3 adopted the plaintiff. Thereafter defendant No. 3 was brought on the record as the heir and legal representative of Mallangowda, and a decree was passed against her.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 denied the adoption set up by the plaintiff, and also contended that the suit was barred by res judicata. Defendant No. 3 denied the adoption, and stated that there was no giving and taking, but that a deed of adoption only was taken by the plaintiff from her father, and that the deed of gift was false and collusive.