Decided on September 09,1971



Muktadar, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13/03/1967 of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in O. S. No. 25/65. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He has filed this suit in forma pauperis against the respondents for declaration of title and recovery of possession of A and "B" plain-schedule properties. His allegations are that he was validly adopted by the Ist respondent on 10-6-1948. It is asserted in the plaint that the appellant was the natural son of Cheemala Konda Ganapati and name of Peda Adwita Parabharama Sastry and after the said adoption he was renamed as Sankara Viswanadha Sarma; and that money of the appellant was celebrated at Rajahmundry. Since the appellate was hardly five years old at the time of adoption he was staying with his natural father and was late educated mostly at pentapadu village. Respondent No. 1 was now and then sending money to the natural father towards the upkeep of the appellant. The appellant after passing the S. S.L.C. examination wanted to continue his studies but the Ist respondent having been influenced by the 2nd respondent and other relatives neglect the appellant, as a consequence of which he could not pursue his studies above the P.U.C. course. The appellant attained majority on 9-8-1961. In spite of the appellants respect for his adoptive mother, respondent No. 1 not only adopted a hostile attitude towards the appellant but she was influenced to gift away the properties to defendant No. 2 to the detriment of the interests of the appellant. It is further alleged in the plaint that on adoption, the suit properties became vested in the appellant immediately but it was agreed to between the appellants natural father and respondent No. 1 that the properties would continue to be in the management of respondent No. 1 till the appellant attained majority. The hostile attitude of respondent No. 1 compelled the appellant to issue a notice dated 8-5-1964 which is Ex. B-1 in the suit. Respondent No. 1 replied on 12-601964 denying the adoption of the appellant. The appellant having regard to the strained relationship with respondent No. 1 does not want the Ist respondent no continue the management of the suit properties; hence he prayed for possession of the plaints A and B schedule properties. Respondent No. 2 is impleaded as such because it is alleged that he has obtained a vested remainder right in some of the suit properties.
(2.) In the written statement, respondent No. 1 took the plea that the appellant is not her adopted son. The alleged adoption on 10-6-1948 never took placer. She had no authority to adopt either from her deceased husband or any other person. She merely brought up the appellant as Abhimana Putra. It is stated in the written statement that the Ist respondents husband died nearly 50 years ago leaving a son named Suryapadmanabham who also died in or about 1926. Respondent No. 1 succeeded to the properties as heir of her deceased son and was enjoying the sea in her own right. Respondent No. 1 further pleaded that the appellant is the only son of Cheemalakonda Ganapati Sastry and she had brought him up to only out of love and affection. In fact, she even executed a registered will (Ex. B-3) dated 11-5-`963 wherein she had made provisions for the appellant by be queathing to him the upstairs portion of the building in the plaint B Schedule property and also six acres of wet land out of the plaint a Schedule property for his life with remainder to his sons. She further stated that she had gifted some property to respondent No 1 herself sold the said property to a third party but, she alone received the entire consideration. In the additional written statement. Respondent No. 1 raised the plea of limitation and denied the alleged date of the appellants attaining majority. She further pleaded adverse possession from 1926 onwards when her own son died. Respondent No. 2 remained ex parte.
(3.) On the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:------ "1. Is the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff true and valid? 2. Is the Ist defendant the owner of the suit property and is the plaintiff not entitled thereto, even assuming that he adoption is true and valid? 3. Are the defendants liable to render an account o the profits to the plaintiff? 4. To what relief? Additional issues were framed on 3-12-1966: 1. Whether suit is in time? 2. Whether plaintiff attained majority by 9-8-1961? 3. Whether Ist defendant acquired title by averse possession?";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.