GOLLAPALLI NARSI REDDI Vs. RODDAM RAMI REDDI
LAWS(APH)-1963-9-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 26,1963

GOLLAPALLI NARSI REDDI Appellant
VERSUS
RODDAM RAMI REDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The appellant is the plaintiff. He instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Dharmavaram, for a declaration that the adoption of the first defendant by the third defendant is neither true nor valid nor binding on him. The second defendant was impleaded as the elder brother of the first defendant and it is unnecessary to notice him hereafter in this Second Appeal.
(2.) The main defence was that the adoption was true, valid and binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the adoption was not true and that the agreement of adoption, Exhibit B-1 dated aand May, 1942, was a false and ante-dated document. Consequently, it dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Anantapur, reversed the finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the adoption was true as "well as valid. He, therefore, decreed the suit. The plaintiff has now come up in Second Appeal challenging the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate Court regarding the validity of the adoption.
(3.) The adoption of the first defendant by the third defendant was in Dwyamushyayana form. This is common ground. Exhibit A-1 is the agreement entered into between the natural father of the first defendant on the one hand and the third defendant as the adoptive father on the other, with the avowed object of making the first defendant remain at the same time the son of both his natural father and his adoptive father. Thus, under the adoption in question, the first defendant was to be the son of two fathers. An intended consequence of this appears to be that the first defendant would inherit in the family of his natural father as also in that of his adoptive father. Perhaps both these families would also inherit to him. The natural father of the first defendant is the maternal uncle of the third defendant. It is admitted that at the time of adoption the first defendant's natural father had several sons. The plaintiff is the after-born natural son of the third defendant.;


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