Govt.of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
From No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCCH.11)
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2017
PRESENT: Sri.K.M.Rajashekar, B.Sc., LL.B.,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No :10160/2015
PLAINTIFFS : 1) SRI.PRAMOD.N.K
S/o.late Sri.N.S.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o Sri Ganesh Krupa,
Near Eshwari English School,
Hosakerehalli, Banashankari III Stage,
Bengaluru – 560 085.
2) SMT.USHA.C.S
W/o.Sri.Pramod.N.K
D/o.late Sri.C.H.Sheshappa,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o Sri Ganesh Krupa,
Near Eshwari English School,
Hosakerehalli, Banashankari III Stage,
Bengaluru – 560 085.
(By Pleader Sri.Vasudeva Iyengar.K.T)
2 OS.NO:10160/2015
-VS-
DEFENDANT : Ms.Rakshitha,
D/o.Sri.Venkatesh,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at Harohalli, Kanakapura Taluk.
:Also at:
No.159, Andrahalli Main Road,
1st Cross, Friends Colony,
Bengaluru-560 091.
(Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 14.12.2015
Nature of the Suit : Declaration Injunction
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 22.09.2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 25.03.2017
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 01 03 11
—
(K.M.RAJASHEKAR)
VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
3 OS.NO:10160/2015
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs have got filed this suit for
declaration that they are the father and mother of male
child in terms of the registered Adoption Deed dated
09.09.2015; for declaration that the natural mother
Smt.Rakshitha being isolated woman alone has the right
to give the male child in adoption; and for restraining
anybody claiming right over male child in any manner
from up bringing by the Plaintiffs.
2) In nutshell Plaintiffs case is that, Plaintiffs are
husband and wife. The Defendant Ms.Rakshitha, being
an isolated woman had given birth to a male child on
02.09.2015 at Vanivilas Hospital, Bengaluru, she cannot
up bring the child properly, and hence, she proposed to
give her male child on adoption to the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs have no issues and on account of advanced
age they have no expectation of having any issue in
future, hence they entered into the registered Adoption
Deed dated 09.09.2015 for getting the male child in
4 OS.NO:10160/2015
adoption from Ms.Rakshitha and they have also
performed ‘DATTAKA HOMAM’ for the said adoption.
Plaintiff No.1 is working in Medical Company and
Plaintiff No.2 is working as Teacher in Private school in
Bengaluru and they are having an income of R.40,000/-
per month and they have decided to give bright future
to the male child, further they are unaware of the father
of the child and his identity since the mother of the child
has been cheated and impregnated by unknown man
and she is not in a position to disclose the name of that
person. Under the pathetic situation, sorrowful and
helpless plight of the Defendant Ms.Rakshitha, Plaintiffs
accepted the child in adoption and though accepted to
go in for adoption felt it necessary to legalize the
adoption to avoid further litigation and disputes either
from the Defendant or from unknown natural father of
the child or anybody claiming through or on behalf of
them, hence, this suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
5 OS.NO:10160/2015
3) Notice of this suit is duly published in the
newspaper. Neither the Defendant nor any of the
parties appeared before Court to contest the case,
accordingly, the Defendant has been placed exparte.
4) In support of the case, the 1st Plaintiff got
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.5.
5) Heard. Perused the records.
6) The point that arises for my consideration is :
” Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to
the reliefs sought for?”
7) My answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following :
REASONS
8) Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
it is seen that the Plaintiffs have come up with this suit
6 OS.NO:10160/2015
for declaration that they are the father and mother of
male child in terms of the registered Adoption Deed
dated 09.09.2015; and that the natural mother
Smt.Rakshitha being isolated woman alone has the right
to give the male child in adoption; and for restraining
anybody claiming right over male child in any manner
from up bringing by them on the ground that, they
being husband and wife are issueless and on account of
advanced age, they have no expectation of having any
issue in future, so they agreed to the proposal made by
the Defendant Ms.Rakshitha to given in adoption her
male child born on 02.09.2015 at Vanivilas Hospital,
Bengaluru due to her isolation and not in a position to
up bring the child properly and entered into the
registered Adoption Deed dated 09.09.2015 and also
performed ‘DATTAKA HOMAM’ for the said adoption.
Plaintiff No.1 is working in Medical Instrument Company
and Plaintiff No.2 is working as Teacher in Private school
in Bengaluru and they have an income of R.40,000/- per
7 OS.NO:10160/2015
month and have decided to give bright future to the
male child and though accepted to go in for adoption
felt it necessary to legalize the adoption to avoid further
litigation and disputes either from the Defendant or
from unknown natural father of the child or anybody
claiming through or on behalf of them etc.
9) In order to support the case, the 1st Plaintiff
Sri.Pramod.N.K got examined himself as P.W.1, who has
reiterated the plaint averments on oath and got marked
Exs.P.1 to P.5 viz., OPD book of Vani Vilas Hospital,
Discharge cum Identity Card of Ms.Rakshitha, Marriage
Registration Certificate, registered Deed of Adoption
dated 09.09.2015 and affidavit of one
Smt.Parvathamma.
10) At this stage, it is relevant to mention the
provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads thus :
8 OS.NO:10160/2015
” 16. Presumption as to registered
documents relating to adoption.-
Whenever any document registered under
any law for the time being in force is produced
before any court purporting to record an
adoption made and is signed by the person
giving and the person taking the child in
adoption, the court shall presume that the
adoption has been made in compliance with
the provisions of this Act unless and until it is
disproved. ”
11) Upon going through the registered Instrument
which is marked as Ex.P.4 in this case, it indicates that
one Ms.Rakshitha who is the mother of the male child
has given in adoption the child to the Plaintiffs herein.
The said registered instrument is executed before the
Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru and witnessed by two of the
attesting witnesses. The notice of this suit is duly
notified in paper publication. Neither the mother of the
adopted child nor any third party has approached the
court to counter the claim of the Plaintiffs. The hospital
documents got placed by the Plaintiffs herein clearly
indicates that the adoptive child belongs to the
Defendant Ms.Rakshitha. Under the facts and
circumstances of this case and keeping in view of
9 OS.NO:10160/2015
Section 16 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act, I am
of the opinion that when the document registered as
required under law is placed before this court as per
Ex.P.4 regarding adoption and that Adoption Deed is
signed by the mother of the adoptive child and the
Plaintiffs herein who have taken the child on adoption,
presumption follows that ‘Whenever any document
registered under any law for the time being in force is
produced before any court purporting to record an
adoption made and is signed by the person giving and
the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall
presume that the adoption has been made in
compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and
until it is disproved.’ ‘Hence, absolutely there are no
hurdles to hold that the adoption made under the
registered instrument has been done in compliance with
the provisions of this Act as the contrary is not proved
by any of the party. Added to that, their Lordships of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
10 OS.NO:10160/2015
(1998) 8 SCC 701 in the case of MST.DEU AND OTHERS
VS. LAXMI NARAYAN AND others have held that :
” Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.22 Rr.5
and 2 – Partition suit – Plaintiff dying – L,
alleging himself to be the adopted son of the
Plaintiff on the basis of a registered deed of
adoption, seeking substitution – Determination of
the correctness of L’s allegation – Procedure – In
such circumstances, in view of S.16 of Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, held, the trial
court rightly directed L to be substituted in place
of the Plaintiff – ”
In the absence of any materials to prove contrary to the
claim of the Plaintiffs, that too in the back ground of
Plaintiffs claim is armored with the registered
instrument, I am of the opinion that absolutely there are
no reasons to disbelieve the claim of the Plaintiffs,
accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative
and proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
The suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby
decreed as prayed for.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by
her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open
Court, dated this the 25th March, 2017.)
(K.M.RAJASHEKAR)
VI Addl.City Civil Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
11 OS.NO:10160/2015
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs side :
P.W.1 – Sri.Pramod.N.K dtd.22.09.2016
(b) Defendant’s side : N I L
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiffs side :
Ex.P.1 – OPD Book of Vani Vilas Hospital
Ex.P.2 – Discharge cum Identity Card of Ms.Rakshitha
Ex.P.3 – Marriage Registration Certificate of Plaintiffs
Ex.P.4 – Registered Deed of Adoption dtd.09.09.2015
Ex.P.5 – Affidavit of Smt.Parvathamma
(b) Defendant’s side : N I L
—
VI Addl.City Civil Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
