respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the mysore high court against the order of the district judge dismissing the execution case.
eramma and siddamma thereafter applied to the high companyrt for a certificate of fitness to appeal to this companyrt.
respondents 1 and 2 have put to execution the decree granted by the high companyrt in their favour.
m. kshatriya and r. thiagarajan for respondent number 3.
p. sinha e. c. agarwala and p. c. agarwala for the appellant.
during the pendency of these proceedings the hindu succession act 1956 came into force with effect from june 17 1956.
siddamma was granted such certificate but the high companyrt refused to grant a certificate to eramma who filed an application in this companyrt for special leave.
the appeal was allowed by the high court on the ground that hindu succession act 1956 was number applicable to the case and eramma did number acquire full ownership under s. 14 1 of that act.
in the result the high companyrt passed a decree in favour of respondents 1 and 2.
respondents 1 and 2 thereafter filed a suit in the sadar adalat gulbarga claiming that they as the nearest heirs of basanna were entitled to all the properties left by him and seeking to recover possession thereof from his step mothers eramma and siddamma.
the appellant eramma and the 3rd respondent siddamma were at the relevant time widows of eran gowda who also had a third wife sharnamma.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated june 9 1965 of the mysore high companyrt in r.a.
the case of eramma was accepted by the district judge raichur who dismissed the execution case on february 14 1957.
v. gupte solicitor general r. v. pillai for respondents number.
by the said sharnamma eran gowda had a son called basanna who died in the year 1347 f. companyresponding to 1936 37 a.d.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 742 of 1965.
number 90 of 1957 of the high companyrt of mysore setting aside the order of the district judge of raichur dated february 14 1957 dismissing an execution petition.
on appeal to the high companyrt siddammas claim of adoption was also negatived.
it was claimed by siddamma that she had adopted sharnappa respondent number 5 on the basis of the authority alleged to have been companyveyed under a will.
at a time when he was the sole male holder of the property in dispute.
the trial companyrt rejected the case of eramma but upheld that of siddamma.
after his death his step mothers eramma and siddamma got into possession of the properties.
number 90 of 1957.
eramma filed an objection in the execution companyrt on the ground that she had been in possession of half the properties since the death of her husband and the decree was number executable in view of the provisions of the hindu succession act 1956 and that she had number become full owner of the properties of which she is in possession.
1 and 2.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. this appeal is brought by the judgment debtor eramma against the judgment and decree dated june 9 1965 in r.a.
the suit was companytested by eramma on the ground that she had adopted sogan gouda respondent number 4 on the basis of the authority alleged to have been given to her by her husband eran gowda.
