Narasimhulu Naidu supplied textile materials and clothes to the employees of the APSEB and the Appellant was looking after the business.
She sought for partition of the suit schedule property.
He relied upon the School and College records apart from service record of Narasimhulu Naidu in support of his submission.
He stated that it is number possible for the Appellant to prove the manner in which the adoption took place as she was very young at that time.
The principal issues that were framed by the City Civil Court relating to the relief of declaration that the Appellant is the daughter of the Respondent and deceased Narasimhulu Naidu and her right for partition of the suit scheduled properties were answered in favour of the Defendant.
As the Appellants biological parents died when she was very young, the Respondent and her husband Narasimhulu Naidu brought her up.
It was submitted that due to the ill advice of relatives, the original Defendant M. Sarla Devi turned against the Appellant and was making an attempt to alienate the properties.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant has filed the above Appeal.
It was the case of the Appellant in the plaint that her adoptive parents initially did number approve the marriage of the Appellant with the person of her choice, but later arranged a grand reception at Hotel Swagat, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
the Appellant was mentioned as the daughter of the original Respondent and her husband.
By a judgment dated 15.09.2006, the City Civil Court dismissed the suit.
As such, it was companytended by the Respondent that the Appellant does number have any right in the properties belonging to the Defendants husband.
Narasimhulu Naidu died intestate on 19.08.2003.
The Appellant was brought up by the Respondent and her husband, Narasimhulu Naidu.
Her mother is the sister of the original Respondent M. Sarla Devi died Respondent herein.
The learned companynsel for the Appellant strenuously submitted that there is overwhelming evidence brought on record to show that the Appellant was treated as the daughter of Narasimhulu Naidu and the Respondent husband for all practical purposes.
Narasimhulu Naidu worked as a Lift Operator in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board APSEB and retired on 30.06.1999.
v. Smt.
In the records of School and College, the names of the original Respondent and her husband were entered as the parents of the Appellant.
He also purchased certain other properties.
In his service record, the Appellant is referred to as his daughter.
Appellant pleaded in the suit that she was brought up as the daughter of the Respondent Sarla Devi and her husband Late Narasimhulu Naidu.
The original Respondent filed a written statement in which it was stated that the Appellant is the daughter of her younger sister Manjula.
Relying upon Sections 7 and 11 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956 , the trial companyrt held that the Appellant companyld number prove the ceremony of adoption.
As the negotiation for an amicable settlement failed, the Appellant was companystrained to file a suit for a declaration that she is the adopted daughter of the original Respondent and Narasimhulu Naidu, and for partition of the properties belonging to Narasimhulu Naidu.
Even in the government records like ration card, etc.,
The School and College records and other documents that were filed in Court by the Appellant would show that the Respondent and her husband were shown as the parents of the Appellant.
As the Appellant was very young, she was brought by her grand mother and given to the Respondent and her husband to be taken care of.
The request made by the Appellant for partition of the properties was turned down by the Respondent leading to the filing of the Civil Suit.
He relied upon the judgment of this Court in L. Debi Prasad Dead by Lrs.
The suit was dismissed and the judgment of the trial companyrt was upheld by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
We have heard Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, learned companynsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. T.V. Ratnam, learned companynsel appearing for the Respondent.
O.S. No.
Therefore, the Appellant had failed to prove that she has been adopted by the Respondent and her husband Narasimhulu Naidu.
Even the grand mother of the Appellant who appeared before the Court as PW 3 deposed that the Appellant who lost her parents in her childhood was given to the Respondent and her husband to be brought up.
They ensured that she had good education but the Appellant was never adopted by the Respondent and her husband.
The Appellant has been numberinated in the application for pension of Narasimhulu Naidu.
According to the Appellant, she along with the Respondent succeeded to the entire estate of Narasimhulu Naidu and that she is entitled to half share of his properties.
After the death of Narasimhulu Naidu, the Respondent was residing in the suit schedule property and was in enjoyment of the properties of Narasimhulu Naidu.
Narasimhulu Naidu was the absolute owner of a building situated at Srinivas Nagar East, Gayatri Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
It was averred in the plaint that both the natural parents and the Appellant died when she was very young.
190 of 2004 was filed by the Appellant in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Eventually, the Appellant married and started living separately.
PW 3 also stated in her evidence that the Appellant was number adopted by the Respondent and her husband.
Tribeni Devi Ors.1 to argue that the subsequent events can be taken into account for the purpose of proving adoption.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The Appellant filed a civil suit for a declaration that she is the adopted daughter of the Respondent and Late Narasimhulu Naidu.
