Decided on March 27,1963



Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiffs Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. who, on appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The corner stone of the plaintiffs suit was the claim that he was duly adopted by the 6th defendant as his son and that as a result of this adoption he and the 6th defendant constituted a Hindu joint family which owned the suit properties. In the year 1948 when the plaintiff was away, the sister of the 6th defendant (4th defen-dent), her son-in-law (1st defendant) and her grand children (defendant No. 2) and the deceased husband of the (3rd defendant) exerted undue influence over the 6th defendant who was then physically and mentally infirm and caused him to execute a gift deed of the properties in favour of the 2nd defendant and his deceased brother. Yet actual possession of the properties continued to be with the 6th defendant till some time in August 1950. Defendants 1 to 4 trespassed upon the properties in August 1950 and reduced them to illegal possession. The plaintiff claimed past and future mesne profits from defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the properties in their wrongful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff further alleged that in March 1950, defendants 1, 2, 4 and the deceased husband of the 3rd defendant, brought to existence a simple mortgage of the suit properties in favour of the 5ih defendant in order to give a semblance of truth and validity to the gift of the properties which was obtained by them from the 6th defendant as a result of undue influence. The plaintiff sought a declaration that this mortgage is not valid and binding on him or on the suit properties, which belong to his joint family. The suit was resisted on the grounds that the adoption set up in the plaint was false, that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of the 6th defendant and that the gift deed and the mortgage deed, though assailed in the plaint, were genuine and valid.
(2.) The trial Court, on the evidence placed before it, arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the 6th defendant and that the plaintiff and the 6th defendant formed a Hindu joint family to which the suit properties belonged. It therefore gave judgment for plaintiff. On appeal, Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J., reversed this decision. He did so on the ground that almost the entire documentary evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff was inadmissible and unacceptable and that the oral evidence was insufficient for establishing the case of adoption put forward by the plaintiff. The correctness of this decision of the learned single Judge has been strenuously challenged in this appeal.
(3.) In support of the appeal, the appellants learned counsel has submitted that the learned single Judge was palpably in error in rejecting valuable documentary evidence on the side of the plaintiff and in failing to view the entire evidence in proper perspective and, assess its cumulative probative value. This attack on the part of the appellant calls for an examination of the admissibility and weight of the several documents which the learned single Judge rejected.;

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