SIDDALINGAIAH Vs. H K KARIAPPA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H K KARIAPPA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS second appeal is by the defendant before the trial Court and he is aggrieved by the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff for cancellation of the adoption deed dated 23-8-48 and for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit properties, being decreed and the lower appellate Court conflicting the same by dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendant. Thus, concurrent findings of the courts below are called in question.
(2.)THE plaintiff' s case was that her husband Boregowda and Ningaiah alias vadakantaiah were the sons of one Boregowda and both the sons mentioned above died long back and the plaintiff being the wife of 1st son Boregowda also lost her children and thereafter the plaintiff began to reside with her younger brother Karigowda and it is the case of the plaintiff Chikkamma, that she has been in possession of the suit schedule properties following an order passed by the Deputy commissioner for Inam Abolition and later the plaintiff gave half share in all the properties held by her in favour of defendant's father and thereafter both the plaintiff and the defendant's father enjoyed the respective properties and following the death of the defendant's father, the defendant continued to enjoy his father's share and as the plaintiff had become issueless after having lost her two children, she joined her younger brother karigowda and lived with him. It is her case that the defendant i. e. the appellant herein filed a suit in O. S. No. 63/88 seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff's younger brother Karigowda and his son Kariyappa in respect of the suit schedule property and it was in the said suit, that the defendant came up with the claim of he being the adopted son of the plaintiff Chikkamma, and after coming to know of this fact, the plaintiff filed the present suit for the aforesaid relief and it is her case that no adoption had taken place as contended by the defendant in the earlier suit and the defendant and his parents played fraud on the plaintiff and appeared to have got a document registered as adoption deed. The plaintiff had no qualification to take the defendant in adoption and likewise the defendant also had no qualification for being adopted.
(3.)ON the basis of the aforesaid averments; in the plaint, it is contended that the cause of action for the suit arose in the 1st week of july 1988 when the plaintiff came to know about the defendant having pleaded adoption in O. S. No. 63/88 and therefore the suit be decreed as prayed for.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.