KANYADHARA TATAYYA Vs. KANYADHARA RAGHAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a dispute between two rival adopted sons. The 1st defendant K. Ramayya had and has no children. It is the case of the 2nd defendant Tatayya who is the wife's sister's son of Ramayya that he was adopted in 1911 or 1912 by Ramayya. It is also now found that Ramayya adopted his brother's son Ragavayya the plaintiff in the present suit, in November 1919. It is obvious that, if the 2nd defendant was adopted in 1911 or 1912 the reason for the second adoption in 1919 was that for some reason the 1st defendant wanted to throw the first adoption overboard and create a rival adopted son. It is said his wife's relations, set up the adoption of the plaintiff in 1919. The 2nd defendant filed a suit on the 25 October 1920, against Ramayya to establish his adoption and to recover his share of the property.

(2.) The plaint in that suit is now filed as Ex. F. The object of the suit was primarily the establishing of 2nd defendant's adoption. The relief for partition was a merely incidental and consequential one. The father Ramayya filed a written statement in which he denied Tatayya's adoption, set up by the adoption of Raghavayya, his brother's son and prayed that the suit might be dismissed with costs. The whole of the family properties was the subject of that suit. In so defending Ramayya was attempting to safeguard not only his own interests but those of Raghavayya whom he put forward as his properly adopted son. One might go further and say that in asking that the suit to be dismissed with costs, he was really fighting the battle of the really adopted son according to him rather than his own. The one issue that was framed in the case was "Is the plaintiff's adoption true," the plaintiff there being Tattayya. If Tattayya's adoption is true, Raghavayya's adoption in 1919 is void and useless; but Raghavayya's adoption will stand if Tatayya's was false; so that that issue really raised the question which of the two rival adoptions ought to stand.

(3.) Both parties applied by Ex. III to refer that suit to three arbitrators who were vakils. The arbitrators passed their award, Ex. IV, dated 10 September 1921, in which they found that the adoption of Tattayya was true, but that making this adoption, the father expected Tattayya to come and live with him and to marry his sister's daughter and to help the father in the cultivation of the land. They found the adopted boy has failed to fulfil these expectations of the father. He married another girl and did not reside with the adopted father. On these grounds they gave an award for only 1/3 of the suit property and some costs. The award was made a decree of Court. The present suit is filed on 3 December 1921, that is, within three months after the award; and whatever the truth may be, one thing is very obvious viz., that the suit is instituted by the father as the result of his defeat in the former suit and is an attempt to get over the effect of that award.