LAWS(APH)-2000-3-67

VANDRASI RAMAKRISHNA Vs. NAGOTI SAROJA

Decided On March 15, 2000
VANDRASI RAMAKRISHNA Appellant
V/S
NAGOTI SAROJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below, has come up in second appeal. He laid the suit for declaration that he was the adopted son of one late Vandarasi Srinivasa Rao. The defendants 1 to 5 in the suit are the daughters and the 6th defendant is a natural son of the said Srinivasa Rao. Srinivasa Rao and plaintiff's natural father Satyanarayana (P.W.2) are brothers. Though the suit was filed for a bare declaration without seeking any consequential relief, the main reason for filing the suit appears to be to secure renewal of certain contracts which Srinivasa Rao had with the Railway. Yet curiously the Railway was not impleaded as a party to the suit nor was any relief claimed against the Railway. According to the plaintiff the alleged adoption took place at Chinaganjam on 31-3-1972. By that date Srinivasa Rao had only five daughters and the sixth defendant was subsequently born. Srinivasa Rao died on 14-3-1981. He was a Railway Contractor running stalls on the Railway platforms at Vijayawada, Ongole and Chinaganjam Railway Stations under licences from the Railway. The present suit was filed on 24-4-1981.

(2.) According to the defendants there was no adoption of the plaintiff at all by Srinivasa Rao and the suit was engineered by P.W.2 who was the natural father of the plaintiff and the brother of Srinivasa Rao to facilitate the renewal of the Railway contracts. It is also their case that on the advice of P.W.2, defendants 1 to 5, the daughters of late Srinivasa Rao, put their signatures on blank papers for the purpose of corresponding with the Railway and P.W.2 pressed into service such signed blank papers to fabricate some letters and documents describing the plaintiff as adopted son of Srinivasa Rao.

(3.) Initially an ex parte decree was passed in the suit on 16-6-1981. But the same was set aside on an application filed by the first defendant. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs and also granted compensatory costs of Rs.1,000-00 against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the adoption and that the suit was filed on a false ground known to the plaintiff and it was actuated by mala fides. The appellate Court, while concurring with the finding of the trial Court that the adoption was not proved, however, held that there was cause of action for the suit and it was maintainable. In view of the finding on the question of adoption, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff with costs.