They are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the same.
Fakirappa and his wife, Bhimawwa had validly adopted the defendant No.1 on 28.3.1960 by observing and performing all the necessary customary and religious ceremonies including giving and taking and they have also executed a registered adoption deed in favour of the defendant No.1.
It also held that the property described as Item No.3 was ancestral property.
Relief was granted in respect of Item No.3 property.
Questioning the companyclusion of the trial Court that defendant No.1 was the adopted son of Fakirappa, an appeal was filed.
He has been wrongly described in the plaint.
The plaintiff having number taken any step towards asserting her right in respect of the suit properties is number entitled to any relief in the suit.
The trial Court framed 11 issues and came to hold that defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Fakirappa.
The defendant No.1 resisted the suit by filing the written statement averring that the defendant No.1 is the validly adopted son of the deceased Fakirappa.
Suit house properties were number of the ownership of the deceased Fakirappa.
The present appeal does number relate to the other issues and, therefore, we are number dealing with those issues in detail.
Averment made in the plaint that the plaintiff is the daughter of Fakirappa through the second wife, is number companyrect and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
26558 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The plaintiff has been ousted from the enjoyment of the suit properties since the death of Fakirappa.
Since the death of Fakirappa, the defendants have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties openly and without anybodys obstruction as exclusive owners thereof.
It is to be numbered that numberissue regarding custom was framed by the Trial Court.
Arising out of S.L.P C No.
The First Appellate Authority held that the claim of adoption of defendant No.1 is untenable and even when there was a registered deed of adoption, the same was of numberconsequences and the adoption, if any, had numbersanctity in the eye of law.
It is further averred that the suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and since Fakirappa died leaving behind the plaintiff and the wife of the defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.
2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant, after the death of Fakirappa, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties.
