SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr.Jayamuni M vs Mrs.Shashikala Jayaram on 31 August, 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-32), BANGALORE CITY

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2019
Present:

Sri.Ningouda B.Patil, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XX Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

O.S.No.3397/2014

Plaintiff: Mr.Jayamuni M.,
S/o.Muninanjappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.426, ‘Vatsalya’,
Gandhiji Road,
Munnikalappa Layout,
Ramamurthynagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
Since deceased represented
By his legal heirs:

1(a). Mrs.Gowramma.N,
W/o late Jayamuni, M,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.426, ‘Vatsalya’,
Gandhji Road,
Munnikalappa Layout,
Ramamurthynagar,
Bangalore-560 016.

1(b). Mr.Gopinath, J,
S/o late Jayamuni. M
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.82, 5th Main
Road, 12th Cross, Duo
Marvel layout,
Ananthapura,
Yelahanka,Bangalore-64.
2 O.S.No.3397/2014

1(c). Mr.Chandrashekar.J.
S/o late Jayamuni. M
R/at No.4,’Kogulan Nivas’,
Chandrama Layout,
Doddabanasawadi,
Bangalore-560 043.

(By Sri J.Hudson Samuel A, Advocate.)

/VS/

Defendants: 1. Mrs.Shashikala Jayaram,
W/o Mr.Jayaram, Hosakote
Kodi,Virognagar Post,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bengaluru-560 049.

2. Mrs.Yashoda,
W/o.Late Mr.Narendra Kumar,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o at No.68, New No.140,
6th Cross, Kadrrappa Road,
Doddakunte Cox Town,
Bengaluru-560 005.

3. Mrs.Shalini,
D/o Late Mr.Narendra Kumar,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o at No.68, New No.140,
6th Cross, Kadrrappa Road,
Doddakunte Cox Town,
Bengaluru-560 005.

4. Mr.Raghavendra,
S/o Late Mr.Narendra Kumar,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o at No.68, New No.140,
6th Cross, Kadrrappa Road,
Doddakunte Cox Town,
Bengaluru-560 005.

(Deft.1 2:Ex-parte,
Deft.2 4-By Sri. R.Lakshmikantha Rao,
Advocate.)
3 O.S.No.3397/2014

Date of Institution of the
suit: 28.04.2014.

Nature of suit: Partition.

Date of commencement of
recording of evidence: 08.06.2016

Date on which Judgment
pronounced: 31.08.2019

Total Duration: Years Months Days
05 04 03

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff instituted this suit for the reliefs of partition
and separate possession of his share in the subject matter
of the suit against the defendants.

2. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff died and his
legal heirs plaintiff No.1(a) to 1(c) are brought on record and
they proceeded with the suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit (hereinafter called as
‘suit property’) is all that piece and parcel of property
bearing No.68, new No140, 6th Cross, Kadarrapa Road,
Doddakunte, Cox Town, Bengaluru 560 005, measuring
approximately 1825 Sq. ft. and having specific boundaries.
Plaintiff given the description of the suit property in the
schedule annexed to the plaint.

4 O.S.No.3397/2014

4. The case of the plaintiff is that, Muninanjappa and
his wife Munimuddamma @ Rajamma were his parents and
they had no children and hence, adopted three children viz.
Plaintiff, defendant No.1 and one Narendra Kumar; the
said Narendra Kumar was died and defendant No.2 to 4 are
his legal heirs; the said adoptive father of plaintiff
Sri.Muninanjappa expired on 16.6.1973 and adoptive
mother Smt.Munimuddamma @ Rajamma expired on
11.7.2001; therefore, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and deceased
Narendra Kumar were only the legal heirs to the said
adoptive parents Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma.

5. Plaintiff pleaded that, the adoptive father
Muninanjappa gifted suit property to adoptive mother
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma; thereafter the name of the
adoptive mother mutated to the revenue records of suit
property; the said adoptive mother died intestate and
hence, the suit property devolves among plaintiff, defendant
No.1 and deceasd Narendra Kumar; the said Narendra
Kumar was in the service of central Govt. and he expired on
24.6.1987 leaving behind defendant No.2 to 4; hence,
plaintiff is having 1/3rd share in the suit property and
accordingly, defendant No.1 is having 1/3rd share and
defendant No.2 to 4 jointly entitled to 1/3rd share in the
suit property.

6. Plaintiff further pleaded that, the deceased brother
Narendra Kumar lived with mother Munimuddamma @
Rajamma and this being so, defendant No.2 to 4 continued
5 O.S.No.3397/2014

to stay in the suit property and it appears that they are
going to collect the rents from the tenants of suit property;
plaintiff requested the defendant No.2 for effecting partition
and allotment of his share in the suit property but
defendant No.2 raising the emotional issues of she being
widow and having the care of her children, pushing forward
the partition of the suit schedule property; plaintiff
apprehended that defendant No.2 may get transfer the
revenue records of suit property in her name and in the
names of her children excluding plaintiff; hence, he
instructed his son Chandrashekar i.e. plaintiff No.1(c) to
raise objection before ARO, BBMP; accordingly objections
raised vide letter dated 6.10.2010 stating that plaintiff is
the legal heir of late Munimuddamma and in the event any
person approached for transfer of revenue records of suit
property, the same has to be intimated to the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff further also pleaded that, defendant
No.2 approached the revenue authorities for changing the
Khatha of suit property falsely stating that they are only the
legal heirs to deceased Munimuddamma @ Rajamma and
the revenue authorities without giving any notice to the
plaintiff and without hearing him transferred the Khatha of
suit property in the name of defendant No.2; plaintiff came
to know about the said fact through a letter dated
8.10.2013 and it has been stated that as there was no
response the Khatha of suit property was came to be
changed in the name of defendant No.2.

6 O.S.No.3397/2014

8. Plaintiff furthermore pleaded that, neither he nor
his son Chandrashekar received any communication from
revenue authorities and as such, they sought the details of
transfer of Khatha of the suit property from revenue
authorities by filing an application under SectionRTI Act and
hence, letter dated 8.10.2013 was came to be issued;
plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of transfer of
Khatha of suit property before the Appellate authority i.e.
Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Bangalore.

9. Plaintiff furthermore also pleaded that, he and his
brother Narendra Kumar and defendant No.1 were having
1/3rd share each in the suit property and defendant No.2
to 4 with an ulterior motive of usurping of the suit property
falsely deposed and stated that they are only the legal heirs
of Munimuddamma and fraudulently got transferred the
revenue records of suit property in the name of defendant
No.2; plaintiff is having legitimate right of 1/3rd share in the
suit property and therefore, he filed this suit for partition
and separate possession of the said 1/3rd share in the suit
property against the defendants as they denied his
legitimate right.

10. Plaintiff submitted that, the cause of action for
the suit arose on 11.7.2001 when Munimuddamma @
Rajamma expired and subsequently on 8.10.2013 when he
informed that the revenue records of suit property were
transferred in the name of defendant No.2. Plaintiff further
also submitted that, the location of the property is at
Bengaluru and the cause of action for the suit also arose at
7 O.S.No.3397/2014

Bengaluru and therefore, this court is having jurisdiction to
try and entertain the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff prayed to
decree the suit.

11. Plaintiff also sought ex-parte temporary
injunction order against defendants.

12. This court issued the suit summons to
defendants and the said summons were served on
defendants, but defendant No.1 and 3 were not appeared
before this court and defended the suit. Defendant No.2
and 4 appeared before this court through their counsel and
defended the suit by filing their common written statement.

13. The defence of the defendant No.2 and 4 is that,
the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as neither
plaintiff nor defendant No.1 are the legal heirs of
Muninanjappa or they falls within Hindu Undivided Family;
hence, suit is liable for dismissal in limine as plaintiff had
no locus standi to institute the suit.

14. Defendant No.2 and 4 denied the contents of
plaint para No.3 and 4 that plaintiff is also one of the
adopted child of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma and he is a legal heir to the said couple.

15. Defendant No.2 and 4 submitted that plaintiff is a
son of one Sri.M.Rajappa who was an employee of HAL and
after his retirement plaintiff being a son received his service
benefits; hence, it is false to state that plaintiff is a adopted
son of Muninanjappa and Mumimuddamma; further it is
8 O.S.No.3397/2014

false to state that said Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma
adopted three children.

16. Defendant No. 2 and 4 denied that, the suit
properties devolved among plaintiff, defendant No.1 and
Narendra Kumar.

17. Defendant No.2 and 4 submitted that the suit
property is not a self acquired property of Muninanjappa
and it is false to state that, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and
defendant No.2 to 4 are having equal rights in the suit
property; it is false to state that, plaintiff approached
defendant No.2 and sought partition in the suit property;
plaintiff is not at all having any right in the suit property.

18. Defendant No.2 and 4 submitted that, it is not
within their knowledge that plaintiff filed applications
under SectionRTI Act before revenue authorities and sought
information; they submitted that, defendant No.2 to 4 are
only the legal heirs of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma
@ Rajamma; neither plaintiff nor defndant No.1 are entitled
any share in the suit property and they have no any
manner of right title or interest over the suit schedule
property; there is no any cause of action for the suit.
Accordingly, defendant No.2 and 4 prayed to dismiss the
suit with costs.

19. During the proceedings I.A.No.I to IX were filed
and the same have been disposed in accordance with law.

9 O.S.No.3397/2014

20. In view of rival pleadings of both parties, my
predecessor framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased
Muninanjappa and his wife Munimuddamma
have adopted him and his brother
Narendrakumar and the 1st defendant as their
adopted children?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that
himself and defendants are only legal heirs late
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the partition
and separate possession? If so, what is his
share?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?

5. What order or decree?

21. The burden of proving of Issue No.1 and 2 is on
plaintiffs. In order to discharge the said burden of proof,
plaintiffs resorted for both oral evidence and documentary
evidence. Plaintiff No.1(c) examined as P.W.1 and he got
marked the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to P.32.

22. Ex.P.1 is the Death Certificate, Ex.P.2 is the
Power of Attorney, Ex.P.3 and 4 are Family trees, Ex.P.5 is
the Death extract, Ex.P.6 is the Birth Certificate, Ex.P.7 is
the SSLC marks card, Ex.P.8 is the Transfer Certificate,
Ex.P.9 is the Diploma marks card, Ex.P.10 is the Passport,
Ex.P.11 is the Identity Card, Ex.P.12 is the Aadhaar card,
Ex.P.13 is the Identity Certificate, Ex.P.14 is the
Acknowledgment issued by the I.T., Ex.P.15 is the Gift
Deed, Ex.P.16 is the Khatha Extract, Ex.P.17 is the office
10 O.S.No.3397/2014

copy of the appeal filed before the BBMP, Ex.P.18 is the
Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.P.19 is the Declaration,
Ex.P.20 is the Khatha Extract, Ex.P.21 is the Letter
Dt:06-10-2010, Ex.P.22 is the Endorsement issued by the
BBMP, Ex.P.23 is the RTI application, Ex.P.24 is the Death
Certificate, Ex.P.25 is the Birth Certificate, Ex.P.26 is the
Letter, Ex.P.27 is the particulars furnished by the Office of
Co-operative Audit, Ex.P.28 Ex.P.29 are the photos,
Ex.P.30 is the letter written by BBMP under SectionRTI Act,
Ex.P.31 is the certified copy of gift deed dated 31.8.1967
and Ex.P.32 is the notarized copy of gift deed dated 31.8.1967.

23. Defendants in order to discharge their onus
cross-examined P.W.1. They also adduced their oral
evidence by examining defendant No.4 as D.W.1 and got
marked the documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.11.

24. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 are the Letters by Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited, Ex.P.4 is the Cumulative Record,
Ex.D.5 is the Khatha Certificate, Ex.D.6 is the Tax paid
receipt, Ex.D.7 is the Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.D.8 is
the certified copy of the Compromise Petition, Ex.D.9 is the
NOC issued by BDA, Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of the
Will and Ex.D.11 is certified copy of registered Gift Deed.

25. I carefully perused the pleadings of both parties,
oral evidence adduced and documentary evidence produced
by both parties. Heard the arguments of learned counsels
appearing for both parties and also gone through the
authorities relied.

11 O.S.No.3397/2014

26. My answers and findings to the above issues are
as follows:

Issue No.1- In the Negative;

Issue No.2- In the Negative;

Issue No.3- In the Negative;

Issue No.4- In the Negative:

Issue No.5- As per the order passed for the following:

REASONINGS

27. Issue No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that,
plaintiff, defendantNo.1 and one Narendra Kumar i.e.
husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3
and 4 are the adoptive children of a couple Muninanjappa
and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. Plaintiff in plaint para
No.3 pleaded that, Muninanjappa and his wife
Munimuddamma were not having any children and
therefore, they adopted plaintiff, defendant No.1 and one
Narendra Kumar.

28. Defendant No.2 to 4 denied that plaintiff and
defendant No.1 are the adoptive children of Muninanjappa
and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. Plaintiffs in order to
prove the fact of adoption of plaintiff produced the
documentary evidence at Ex.P.4, 6 to 9 and 10 to 14 and
Ex.P.27. The documentary evidence at Ex.P.4 is a general
affidavit, wherein plaintiff No.1(c) sworn that his father
M.Jayamuni i.e. the plaintiff was the adoptive son of
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. The said
12 O.S.No.3397/2014

affidavit is a self declaratory in nature and the self
declaration is not of plaintiff. The documentary evidence at
Ex.P.6 to 9 are the school records of plaintiff, wherein his
name is entered as M.Jayamuni and it is shown as he is
the son of Muninanjappa.

29. The documentary evidence at Ex.P.10 is a
passport of plaintiff issued by passport authority, wherein
it has been shown that the plaintiff is the son of
Muninanjappa and Rajamma. In the said document, the
name of the spouse of plaintiff is mentioned as Gowramma
Nanjappa.

30. The documentary evidence at Ex.P.11 and 13 are
identity card/certificate of plaintiff issued by the
department in which he was served. In the said
documentary evidence it is mentioned that plaintiff is the
son of Muninanjappa.

31. The documentary evidence at Ex.P.12 is Aadhaar
card of plaintiff and in the said document, the name of the
plaintiff is mentioned as Jayamuni Muninanjappa. The
Income tax Department addressed a letter on 25.6.2009 to
the address of plaintiff by mentioning the name of the
plaintiff as Muninanjappa Jayamuni. The said letter is at
Ex.P.14.

32. On the basis of the above said documentary
evidence, plaintiffs are going to establish that deceased
plaintiff was an adoption son of the couple Muninanjappa
and Munimuddamma. Plaintiffs except the above said
13 O.S.No.3397/2014

documentary evidence not produced any other evidence to
show that deceased plaintiff was adopted by Muninanjappa
and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. Defendant No.2 to 4
denied the relation of deceased plaintiff through adoption
with Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma. The counsel for
defendant during argument submitted that, deceased
plaintiff might be a foster child/son of Muninanjappa and
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. He contended that,
Narendra Kumar, the husband of defendant No.2 and
father of defendant No.3 and 4 was the son of
Muninanajappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma and
therefore, defendant No.2 to 4 being the wife and children
of said Narendra Kumar are only the legal heirs to inherit
the suit property. He relied the documentary evidence
marked at Ex.P.32. The said documentary evidence is a Gift
Deed dated 31.8.1967 executed by one Mariyappa in favour
of R.Jayamuni son of Rajappa i.e. the deceased plaintiff.
Plaintiffs themselves produced the said document. On
careful perusal of the said document, it reveals that
deceased plaintiff was the son of Rajappa and he was
represented by his aunt Smt.Munimuddamma @ Rajamma.
Thus, according to defendant No.2 to 4 defendant plaintiff
was the son of one Rajappa, but parented by
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma w/o. Muninanjappa and
hence, deceased plaintiff was her foster child/son and not
the adoptive son. Further, defendant No.2 to 4 produced
the documentary evidence at Ex.D.9 i.e. NOC by BDA
obtained under SectionRTI Act, discloses that plaintiff is the son of
one Rajappa. The said documentary evidence is not
disputed by the plaintiffs.

14 O.S.No.3397/2014

33. Counsel for defendant further argued that the
documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs at Ex.P.4,
6 to 9 and 10 to 14 are not sufficient to hold that deceased
plaintiff was the adopted son of couple Muninanjappa and
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. He further also argued that,
there is no any scope under Hindu law for a couple to have
multiple adoptions and according to him, the Hindu Law of
Adoption permits only one adoption in each case of son and
daughter. In this case it is an undisputed fact that the
parties are Hindus and they are governed by Hindu law.

34. An adoption will become valid if the same is in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6 to Section9 and
Section 11 of Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956.
With respect to this case, Section 6 and Section11 of the said Act
are very significant. Section 6 of said Act provides that:

“Section-6: Requisites of a valid
adoption.-No adoption shall be valid unless-

(i) the person adopting has the capacity,
and also the right, to take in adoption;

(ii) the person giving in adoption has the
capacity to do so;

(iii) the person adopted is capable of being
taken in adoption; and

(iv) the adoption is made in compliance with
the other conditions mentioned in this
Chapter”.

Thus, Section 6 enumerates the requirements of a valid
adoption. (1) The person adopting the child must have the
right to take and lawfully capable of taking a son or
15 O.S.No.3397/2014

daughter in adoption. (2) The person giving in adoption
must be lawfully capable of doing so. (3) The person
adopted must be lawfully capable of being taken in
adoption. (4) The conditions related to adoption as stated in
the other provisions of the Act must be fulfilled.

35. Thus, as per Section 6(iv) of Hindu Adoptions and
SectionMaintenance Act, 1956 the other conditions of an adoption
are here at Section 11. Section 11 of Hindu Adoption
and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956 provides that:

S.11: Other conditions for a valid adoption.- In
every adoption, the following conditions must be complied
with:

(i) If the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father
or mother by whom the adoption is made must
not have a Hindu son, son’s son or son’s son’s
son (whether by legitimate blood relationship
or by adoption) living at the time of adoption;

(ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive
father or mother by whom the adoption is
made must not have a Hindu daughter or
son’s daughter (whether by legitimate blood
relationship or by adoption) living at the time
of adoption;

(iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to
be adopted is a female, the adoptive father is
at least twenty one years older than the
person to be adopted;

(iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person
to be adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is
at least twenty one years older than the
person to be adopted;

16 O.S.No.3397/2014

(v) the same child may not be adopted
simultaneously by two or more persons;

(vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given
and taken in adoption by the parents or
guardian concerned or under their authority
with intent to transfer the child from the family
of its birth [or in case of an abandoned child or
a child whose parentage is not known, from
the place or family where it has been brought
up] to the family of its adoption.

Provided that the performance of datta homam
shall not be essential to the validity of an
adoption.”

Thus, as per the provisions of Section 11(vi), an adoption to
be valid, there must be giving of the child by the natural
parents and acceptance of the said child by the adoptive
parents.

36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1975
SC 1103 in the matter of Devaraj -Vs- Suraj Bai stated
that:

“Failure of compliance with any of the above said
requirements will render the adoption null and
void. This Section is mandatory in nature. The
requirements are cumulative and must be
complied with. The requirement about giving in
adoption by competent person is applicable both
in the case of minor and other person who, where
permissible by custom, may be adopted”.

17 O.S.No.3397/2014

37. In this case, as contended by the learned counsel
for defendant No.2 to 4 plaintiffs not adduced any iota of
evidence to show that deceased plaintiff was given in
adoption by his natural parents and the couple
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma accepted
him as adopted child/son.

38. The counsel for defendant No.2 to 4 further
argued that plaintiffs not proved the adoption of deceased
plaintiff by the Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma. He further also submitted absolutely there is no
any evidence on record to show that deceased plaintiff
adopted by Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.4 to 9 and
10 to 14 will not come to the help of plaintiffs in proving the
adoption. According to him, there is no any evidence on
record to show that deceased plaintiff was given in adoption
by complying the condition that ‘actual giving the child by
natural parents and adoptive parents accepted the child’.

39. The counsel for plaintiff argued that, the adoption
took place long back and therefore, it cannot be expected
the legible evidence to prove the adoption. Perhaps,
plaintiffs are having the sort of evidence which proves that
deceased plaintiff was adopted by his adoptive father and
mother. The counsel for plaintiff relied on a citation
reported in 1970 (1) SCC 667 in the matter of Debi Prasad
(dead) by his L.Rs. -Vs- Smt.Tribeni Devi Others,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

18 O.S.No.3397/2014

“In the case of all ancient transactions, it is but
natural that positive oral evidence will be lacking.
Passage of time gradually wipes out such evidence.
Human affairs often have to be judged on the basis of
probabilities. Rendering of justice will become
impossible if a particular mode of proof is insisted
upon under all circumstances. In judging whether an
adoption pleaded has been satisfactorily proved or
not, we have to bear in mind the lapse of time
between the date of the alleged adoption and the date
on which the concerned party is required to adduce
proof. In the case of an adoption said to have taken
place years before the same is questioned, the most
important evidence is likely to be that the alleged
adoptive father held out the person claiming to have
been adopted as his son; the latter treated the former
as his father and their relations and friends treated
them as father and son. There is no predetermined
way of proving any fact. A fact is said to have been
proved where after considering the matters before it,
the Court either believes it to exist or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to act
upon the supposition that it exists. Hence, if after
taking an over all view of the evidence adduced in the
case, we are satisfied that the adoption pleaded is
true, we must necessarily proceed on the basis, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, that it is a
valid adoption as well.”

19 O.S.No.3397/2014

40. He also relied another citation reported in (2018)
9 SCC 663, in the matter of Kamala Rani -Vs- Ramlalith
Roy @ Laluki Roy (dead) through his L.R. Others,
wherein it has been held that:

“Though formal ceremony of giving and taking is
an essential ingredient for valid adoption, long
duration of time during which a person is stated
as adopted cannot be ignored”.

41. The learned counsel for plaintiff canvassed the
argument that, the documentary evidence produced at
Ex.P.4 to 9 and 10 to 14 proves that the deceased plaintiff
was treated as adopted son of Muninanjappa and
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma for a long period. Therefore,
he is the adopted son of the said couple. There is no any
difficulty for this court in accepting the said argument of
counsel for plaintiff in respect of the documentary evidence
he relied. But, plaintiff not adduced any evidence in
respect of the essential ingredient of ‘giving and taking the
child’ in adoption. Absolutely there was no impediment for
the plaintiffs to lead the evidence in respect of giving the
deceased plaintiff in adoption by his natural parents and
taking or receiving him as adopted son by the
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. The
plaintiff would have an opportunity of adducing atleast the
oral evidence in respect of giving and taking of the child by
examining any person. The plaintiffs have not done the
same. When plaintiff not proved the very ingredient part of
giving and taking of the child i.e. deceased plaintiff, it
20 O.S.No.3397/2014

cannot be held that he had been given in adoption.
Therefore, authorities relied by the plaintiffs are not
applicable to their case.

42. Further, plaintiffs in their own pleadings pleaded
that, Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma
were adopted three children including the deceased
plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that, the said Muninanjappa
and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma were the Hindu couple
and they were governed by Hindu Law. As per Section 11(i)
of Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act,1956 if the
adoptive father or mother by whom adoption is made must
not have a son. Hence, the said pleadings of plaintiffs are
quite opposite to the Section 11(i) of Hindu Adoption and
SectionMaintenance Act, 1956. Section 11(i) indirectly states that
multiple adoptions are not possible among Hindus. Under
the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma adopted three
children during their life time. Therefore, for the reasons
and observations made above, I am of the opinion that, the
contention of plaintiffs that, Muninanjappa and his wife
Munimuddamma adopted the deceased plaintiff are false
and not acceptable. Accordingly, my answer to Issue No.1
is in Negative.

43. ISSUE NO.2: Plaintiffs in their plaint para No.7
pleaded that, the adoptive parents of deceased plaintiff,
defendant No.1 and Narendra Kumar died leaving behind
the suit property and after their death, suit schedule
property devolved upon their legal heirs i.e. deceased
21 O.S.No.3397/2014

plaintiff, defendant No.1 and present defendant No.2 to 4 as
they are the legal representatives of deceased Narendra Kumar.

44. Defendant No.2 to 4 disputed the said fact and
they contended that, they are only entitled persons to claim
suit property.

45. To prove the aforesaid fact, plaintiffs relied
documentary evidence at Ex.P.3, P.4 and P.9. The
documentary evidence at ExP.3 is a attestation certificate of
genealogy of the family of plaintiffs. The DeputyTahasildar
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk issued the
said certificate. As per the said certificate, the contents of
affidavit under e-stamp paper No.157259, dated 6.10.2015
is confirmed for the purpose of claiming heirship and
pension etc. Plaintiffs also produced the affidavit under
paper No.157259 dated 6.10.2015 and the said document
is marked as Ex.P.4. On careful of Ex.P.4, it is crystal clear
that it is an affidavit sworn not on e-stamp paper. Thus,
from the documentary evidence at Ex.P.3 and P.4, it is clear
that, there is no consistency between the two documents.
Therefore, it can be stated that plaintiffs obtained the
certificate under Ex.P.3 by giving false information. On the
other hand, plaintiffs also produced the documentary
evidence at Ex.P.19. Ex.P.19 is a declaration in respect of
family tree of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma. The contents of Ex.P.19 are clearly contradictory
to the documentary evidence at Ex.P.3 and P.4. By
producing the documentary evidence at Ex.P.3, P.4 and
P.19 plaintiffs trying to establish that deceased plaintiff was
also adopted son of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma.

22 O.S.No.3397/2014

46. When the documentary evidence produced by the
plaintiffs in respect of their heirship are contradictory to
each other, the said documentary evidence are not worth
for belief and the same are not believable and not reliable.

47. On the other hand, the documentary evidence
produced at Ex.P.32 by the plaintiffs themselves shows
that, their father deceased plaintiff was the son of Rajappa.
Defendant No.2 to 4 also produced the documentary
evidence at Ex.D.9. The said documentary evidence is a No
Objection Certificate issued by BDA dated 3.11.1988
obtained under SectionRTI Act. As per the said documentary
evidence, Bengaluru Development Authority issued NOC to
M.Jayamani, S/o.Rajappa for construction of residential
building. By the said document, it can be stated that
deceased plaintiff was the son of Rajappa and not the son
of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma.
Merely because having an initial as ‘M’ or merely because
having a description as “s/o Muninanjappa”, it cannot be
concluded that, a person is a son of Muninanjappa. Might
be deceased plaintiff was a foster son of Muninanjappa.
But a foster child is not entitle to inherit the property.
Plaintiffs not disputed the said documentary evidence.
Thus, as per the contents of Ex.D.9 deceased plaintiff i.e.
M.Jayamuni is the son of Rajappa and not the son of
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @ Rajamma.
Therefore, it can be safely held that, deceased plaintiff was
not the legal heir of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma to succeed the suit property. Accordingly, my
answer to Issue No.2 is in Negative.

23 O.S.No.3397/2014

48. ISSUE NO.3 4: These issues have been taken
together for common discussion as the findings on one
issue would be the findings on other issue.

49. Plaintiffs contended that, their deceased father
i.e. deceased plaintiff was the one of the adoptive son of
Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma and therefore he was
having 1/3rd share in the suit property and the present
plaintiffs being his legal representatives are entitled for said
1/3rd share in the suit property and accordingly, they
sought for partition and separate possession of the said share.

50. This court while answering issue No.1 observed
that, multiple adoptions are not possible among Hindus
and therefore, the contentions of plaintiffs that their
deceased father was adopted by Muninnajappa and
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma was not tenable under law.
Plaintiffs failed in establishing that their deceased father
was adopted son of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma @
Rajamma. Further, they also failed in establishing that
they are legal heir s of Muninanjappa and Munimuddamma
to succeed the suit property.

51. Defendant No.2 to 4 produced the documentary
evidence at Ex.D.8. The said documentary evidence is a
court record in RSA No.462/1962. In the said documentary
evidence, it is mentioned that, Sri.Narendra Kumar i.e.
husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3
and 4 was the son of Muninanjappa. The said piece of
documentary evidence is a court record, which is having a
presumptive value under Section 41 of Indian Evidence At.

24 O.S.No.3397/2014

Plaintiff also not disputed the correctness of the said
documentary evidence. Thus, as per documentary evidence
at Ex.D.8 the husband of defendant No.2 and father of
defendant No. 3 and 4 was the son of Muninanjappa and
Munimuddamma @ Rajamma. Therefore, plaintiffs failed in
proving the legal character of their father in respect of suit
property and therefore, it can be stated that deceased
plaintiff was not having any semblance of rights over the
suit property. When the deceased plaintiff was not having
any rights over the suit property, plaintiffs being his legal
representatives certainly not entitled to claim the right of
partition in the suit property.

52. The counsel for defendant No.2 to 4 also raised a
plea and argued that, deceased plaintiff not filed the suit by
presenting plaint personally. He submitted that, deceased
plaintiff was a literate but, plaint is signed through thumb
impressions. The counsel for plaintiff replied for the said
plea that, due to infirmity, deceased plaintiff not uses to
put the signature through pen. But, it has came in the in
the cross-examination of P.W.1 that they not produced any
documentary evidence to show that deceased plaintiff was
suffering from an infirmity in putting his signature through
pen. Therefore, answer given by the plaintiffs in respect of
the said plea is also not satisfactory. Looking towards any
angle, the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of suit property
is not tenable and acceptable. Thus, this court is of the
opinion that, plaintiffs are not entitled for the right of
partition in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, my
answers to Issue No.3 and 4 are in Negative.

25 O.S.No.3397/2014

53. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my observations and
answers to issue No.1 to 4 as above discussed, I do not find
any merit in the suit of the plaintiffs and hence, I proceed
to pass the following

ORDER

Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her,
corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on the
31st day of August, 2019.)

(Ningouda B.Patil)
XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.

26 O.S.No.3397/2014

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Mr.Chandrashekar J.

List of documents marked for the Plaintiffs:

Ex.P.1 Death Certificate of Jayamuni M.

Ex.P.2 Power of Attorney dated 7.6.2016.
Ex.P.3 Family Attestation Certificate.

Ex.P.4 Family tree affidavit.
Ex.P.5 Death Certificate of Munimuddamma.
Ex.P.6 Birth Certificate of Jayamuni. M.
Ex.P.7 SSLC marks card of Jayamuni M.
Ex.P.8 Transfer Certificate of Jayamuni M.
Ex.P.9 Diploma marks card of Jayamuni.
Ex.P.10 Passport of M.Jayamuni dt.10.6.2009.
Ex.P.11 Identity card of Jayamuni M.
Ex.P.12 Aadhaar card of Jayamuni.
Ex.P.13 Identity Certificate of Jayamuni.
Ex.P.14 Notice of Income Tax Dept. to
M.Jayamuni.
Ex.P.15 Gift Deed.
Ex.P.16 Khatha Extract.
Ex.P.17 Office copy of the appeal filed before the
BBMP.
Ex.P.18 Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P.19 Declaration.
Ex.P.20 Khatha Extract.
Ex.P.21 Letter Dt:06-10-2010.
Ex.P.22 Endorsement issued by the BBMP
Ex.P.23 Application under RTI.
Ex.P.24 Death Certificate of Muninanjappa.
27 O.S.No.3397/2014

Ex.P.25 Birth Certificate.
Ex.P.26 Letter.
Ex.P.27 Particulars furnished by the Office of
Co-operative Audit.
Ex.P.28 Photos.
29
Ex.P.30 Letter written by BBMP under SectionRTI Act.
Ex.P.31 Certified copy of gift deed dated
31.8.1967.
Ex.P.32 Notarized copy of gift deed dated
31.8.1967.

List of witnesses examined for the defendants:

D.W.1 : Sri.Raghavendra.

List of documents marked for the defendants:

Ex.D.1 to 3 Letters by Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited.

Ex.D.4 Cumulative Record of Narendra Kumar.

Ex.D.5 Khatha Certificate.
Ex.D.6 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.D.7 Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.D.8 Certified copy of the Compromise
Petition.
Ex.D.9 NOC issued by BDA.
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of the Will.
Ex.D.11 Certified copy of the registered Gift
Deed.

(Ningouda B.Patil)
XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
28 O.S.No.3397/2014

Judgment pronounced in the open
court (vide separate judgment).

ORDER

Suit of the plaintiffs is
hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

XX Addl.C.C S.J.,
Bengaluru.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation