D.2 and the Will dated 28.3.1984 Exb.
The further stand was that the adoption of the first defendant as evidenced by the registered document dated 26.3.1984 Exb.
Since disputes arose between the plaintiff and Sharadamma on one hand and the junior widow, Neelamma, on the other hand, the junior widow in companylusion with another brother of Nanjappa Rao by name B.S. Krishnaoji Rao and his wife started giving trouble to the plaintiff by projecting a claim of adoption of their daughter by name Vijayalakshmamma in the year 1970 when she was nine years old but reduced into writing and affirmed under a registered deed dated 26.3.1984, and further said to be fortified by a Will dated 28.3.1984 jointly claimed to have been executed by late Sharadamma and Neelamma.
To prove the claim of the defendants, D.Ws.
Keeping in view the legal position that on the death of Nanjappa Rao in the year 1968 under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widows came to inherit the suit schedule properties with equal share, it was held the adoption of the plaintiff by Sharadamma alone without the companysent of the second wife did number affect the share of Neelamma in the properties and the plaintiff would be entitled to inherit only the share of late Sharadamma alone.
1 to 5 were examined in addition to marking Exbs.
4 5 were also said to have attested the adoption deed Exb.
On a companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for, after adverting to in great detail the overwhelming materials and evidence on record, rejecting at the same time the perfunctory evidence placed on record by the defendants.
D.1 to D.7.
The junior widow of late Nanjappa Rao was impleaded as the second defendant and the proclaimed adopted daughter Vijayalakshmamma was impleaded as the first defendant to the suit.
It was urged for the plaintiff that since late Nanjappa Rao had numberissues through his wives, named above, the plaintiff, the son of Nanjappa Raos elder brother, came to be adopted by both the widows and the factum of adoption was also evidenced by an Adoption Deed written on the same day and, therefore, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties.
In support of the claim of the plaintiff, PWs.
D.1 were held to have number been proved in respect of their genuineness and due execution as well by examining either the Attestors or by taking any steps for proving the signature of Sharadamma, the senior widow, on them.
As an alternate plea, it was projected that in any event the second defendant junior widow of late Nanjappa Rao, having number either accorded her companysent or participated in the so called adoption of the plaintiff by Sharadamma, the senior widow, the adoption of the plaintiff, if at all, companyld be for Sharadamma only and number for or the estate of her husband, late A.T. Nanjappa Rao, and that numberadoption companyld have been properly or legally made of the plaintiff without the companysent of both the widows of late Nanjappa Rao.
Sharadamma, the first wife, and Smt.
To that extent, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court came to be modified into one for an half share in favour of the plaintiff as against the 3/4th share granted by the Trial Court.
The registered deed of adoption Exb.
3 to 5 neighbours of the plaintiff, who were said to have attended the adoption ceremony.
P.1, the unregistered deed of adoption of the plaintiff.
After asserting a claim for partition of his share of the properties by issuing a numberice preceding the filing of the suit, the respondent filed Original Suit No.83/87 praying for a decree for declaration that he is the only adopted son of late Nanjappa Rao and for partition of his 3/4th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for delivery of separate possession of his share and for future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of separate possession to be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 of the C.P.C. The stand of the plaintiff also was that after the death of Sharadamma, the Appellants defendants herein with the help of their men were able to dispossess the plaintiff from some of the properties necessitating the suit claim as numbericed above.
7 8 the natural parents, P.W.6, the natural maternal grand father of the plaintiff and P.Ws.
Aggrieved, the appellants pursued the matter in appeal before the High Court and, as numbericed earlier, the Division Bench affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Judge on the question of factum of adoption of the plaintiff while equally companyfirming the findings that the defendants miserably failed to prove the case projected by them of adoption of the first defendant.
D.2 and the Will Exb.
1 to 8 were examined of whom P.W.1 being himself, P.W.2, the Purohit, who was said to have performed the adoption ceremony, P.Ws.
Neelamma, the second wife.
P.1 to P.5 were also marked as material documentary evidence.
The defendants filed a companymon written statement disputing the facts averred as well as claims made by the plaintiff by companytending that there was numberadoption of the plaintiff by Sharadamma as claimed that the unregistered deed of adoption was a fabricated one and numberrights can be claimed on the basis of such a document.
Sharadamma, the senior widow, died on 25.5.1984 after prolonged illness.
The adoption so made was claimed to have been acted upon by entering the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records as a son of late Nanjappa Rao and that he had been managing all the properties thereafter.
At the same time while companysidering the alternate plea of the appellants, the High Court held that since the adoption of the plaintiff was shown to have been made only by Sharadamma, the senior widow, without the actual companysent and participation of the junior widow, who was alive at that time, the adoption was held to be for Sharadamma, the senior widow, alone and number on behalf of both the widows of late Nanjappa Rao.
The case of the respondent plaintiff is that he has been adopted on 22.6.1970 as per the customs prevalent in the JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ companymunity by Sharadamma, wife of one A.T. Nanjappa Rao, who JJJJJJJJJJJJ died in the year 1968 leaving behind him the suit schedule properties and also two widows, Smt.
D.1 fortified the claim of adoption projected by the defendants and at numberpoint of time the plaintiff was the owner of the properties in question.
RAJU, J. LITTTTTTTJ The appellants defendants have filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.1998 of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No.14 of 1989 partly allowing their appeal but in other respects affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1988 of the Civil Judge, Madhugiri, in Original Suit No.83 of 1987, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession, as prayed for.
