REVAPPA Vs. MADHAVA RAO AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises several interesting issues, and is against differing judgments of the Courts below; the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The District and Session Judge, Bidar, reversed that decision and held in favour of the second defendant Madhava Rao who is the contesting respondent in this appeal. Plaintiff Revappa, minor by guardian Karibasappa has come up by way of second appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows: it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff revappa, minor by his natural father Karibasappa that he is in the case. According to the plaint, the adoption has taken place on the 18th of Kurdab 1356F. But there is no document to evidence the adoption. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that due to certain circumstances Madappa came under the influence of the second defendant Madhava Rao, the contesting respondent in the present appeal and while he was so under his influence, on the 11th of Aban, 1358 F Madappa executed a gift deed in favour of the second defendant, Madhava Rao giving the second defendant 8 acres 36 guntas in survey No. 57 and 7 acres and 5 guntas in survey No. 51 of Kamalnagar village. This gift is evidenced by a registered gift deed which is marked as Exhibit Irrigation Branch in the case. The second defendant, on the 24th of Aban 1358 F obtained a decree against Madhappa, his donor declaring that he (the second defendant) Madhava Rao, viz., the Donee is entitled to shikmi rights in those two survey numbers. The decree also granted him perpetual injunction restraining Madhappa from interfering with his possession. In the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, he has prayed for a declaration of his adoption as the son of Madhappa and for the cancellation of the gift deed dated 11th of Aban 1358 F executed by Madhappa in favour of the second defendant Madhava Rao, the contesting respondent before us. In that suit, the first defendant filed a statement consenting to the claim put forward on behalf of the plaintiff. But the second defendant, viz., Madhava Rao contested the plaintiff's suit. He admitted no doubt that the plaintiff is the material grand-son of Madhappa but he denied the adoption. He stated therein that the gift was executed for the maintenance of the first defendant for the services that the rendered, to the first defendant and for love and affection. He further alleged that the properties were the self-acquired properties of Madhappa and not the ancestral properties as alleged by the plaintiff. He also alleged that he is a close relation of the said Madhappa.

(3.) On the basis of these pleadings, two important issues were raised in the case: