1452 of 1995, by which suit number 36 of 1988 filed in the Court of Munsiff, K.R. Pet stood decreed.
2004 Supp 3 SCR 141 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPADIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave filed by the original defendant number 3 against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No.
Pl itself vested the suit property in the plaintiff and, therefore, the gift deed dated 17.7.1985 was null and void and companysequently the appellant did derive any title to the suit property.
On companysidering the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court companycluded that the plaintiff had proved the adoption which had taken place around 1964 65.
Under Ex.
Pl executed by defendant number 1.
Pl, as there was numberdescription number value of the suit property mentioned therein.
1452 of 1995 under section 100 CPC before the High Court which took the view that Ex.
Sannananjamma defendant number 1 and an absolute owner of the suit property based on the deed of adoption cum settlement dated 12.7.1984 Ex.
In the said suit, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.
That since adoption he lived in the family of defendant number l looking after the suit property.
In this companynection, it was held that although the adoption stood proved, the plaintiff did number divest defendant numberl of the suit property which vested in her by succession on the demise of her husband that during the life time of defendant number l, Nagegowda did number become the owner of suit property.
In companying to this companyclusion, the High Court relied on the recitals in Ex.
Being aggrieved, Nagegowda, the original plaintiff preferred R.S.A. No.
Hence, this civil appeal is filed by defendant number 3.
4 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Srirangapatna hereinafter referred to as the lower appellate Court .
Consequently, both the Courts below dismissed the suit.
By judgment and decree dated 29.11.1991 passed by the trial Court, it was held that the adoption was number proved that it was number according to law and that plaintiff did number acquire any title to the suit property under Ex.
The plaintiff further pleaded that companysequently defendant number 3 did number derive title from defendant number 2.
By written statement, adoption and plaintiff s title were denied.
However, the lower appellate Court rejected the companytention of the plaintiff that as he was the adopted son, he was entitled to the suit property.
Being aggrieved, Nagegowda original plaintiff carried the matter in appeal being R. A. NO.
That after the plaintiff attained majority, he became the manager looked after the property and that there was numberdivision in the family properties.
In the circumstances, he pleaded that gift deed dated 17.7.1985 executed by defendant number l in favour of defendant number 2 was null and void and without authority of law.
Pl, the earlier adoption was companyfirmed and the suit property was stated to have been given to the plaintiff.
It was alleged that the suit property was ancestral and in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant number1.
In the said suit, the deceased plaintiff companytended that defendant number l had adopted him about 23 years back in accordance with the then prevailing customs as she had numberson.
Affirming the decree of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court came to the companyclusion that Ex.
Pl was number a valid settlement and, therefore, the plaintiff had number become the owner of the suit property.
The undisputed facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows Nagegowda since deceased filed the title suit in the Court of Munsiff, R. Pet hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the trial Court seeking a declaration that he was the adopted son of Smt.
