Karnataka High Court
Sri S Basappa vs Gangamma on 9 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A. No.1006/2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S BASAPPA
S/O LATE SAVANDAIAH @
KANDARAIANA SAVANDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. SHIVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
W/O LATE BASAPPA S
2. SRI C B VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA S
3. SMT. C B SHIVARUDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O LATE BASAPPA S
4. SRI C B SAVANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA S
5. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
D/O LATE BASAPPA S
SRI C B MURTHY
S/O LATE BASAPPA S
2
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
6. SMT. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O LATE C B MURTHY
7. SRI YOGANANDA M S
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O LATE C B MURTHY
8. SRI C B KUMARASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA S
ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE
ANKANAHALLI MATA POST
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.G.R.ANANTHARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GANGAMMA
D/O LATE K SAVANDAIAH
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
1. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
2 . SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
3 . SRI BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
4 . SMT. GIRIJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AND
W./O SRI SAVANDAIAH
R-1 TO R-4 ARE
R/AT KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572123
5 . SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AND
W/O SRI SHIVRAMAIAH
R/O UPARTHI
KASABA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK 562138
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159
6 . SRI KEMPARAJA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKEERAIAH
R/O CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE
ANKANHALLI MATA POST
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK 572123
TUMKUR DISTRICT
SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
SINCE DEAD - UNMARRIED AND
ISSUE-LESS
7. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT ...YEARS
D/O LATE KEMPAIAH AND
W/O BELLAPPA
4
R/O HALA RALE
YALAVADI POST
MAGADI TALUK -562 159.
8 . SRI SAVANDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEAWRS
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
R/O CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE
ANKANHALLI MATA POST
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK 572123
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
9 . SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D/O LATE KEMPAIAH AND
W/O CHIKKAHUCHEERAIAH
R/O KEMPANAHALLI
TAVAREKERE POST
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK 572123
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
10 . SRI CHIKKAYALLAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE GUABBAIAH
R/O H.NO. 84,
VINAYAKA NAGARA
RAMNAHALLI POST
KENGER HOBLI-562 129,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2020
PASSED IN R.A. No.38/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED IN O.S. No.239/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
KUNIGAL.
5
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This is a second appeal by the legal representatives of
the deceased plaintiff.
2. Sri.S.Basappa, claiming to be the adopted son of
Savandaiah, filed a suit seeking for a declaration that he was
the owner and in possession of the suit properties. He also
sought for a declaration that the gift deed dated 02.09.1957
executed by Savandaiah in favour of Gangamma--defendant
No.1 and his mother--Bhadramma was null and void. He also
sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 07.12.2009
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 was
null and void, apart from seeking the relief of permanent
injunction.
3. The case put forth by the plaintiff was that Savandaiah,
who had three daughters namely Gangamma, Bhadramma
and Kalamma, had taken the plaintiff in adoption when he
was very young, duly observing all the formalities of
adoption. He stated that during the life-time of his adoptive
father, Savandaiah, he was in joint possession of the suit
schedule properties and after his father's death, he had
continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same.
He stated that, of the three daughters of Savandaiah,
Bhadramma (his mother) and Kalamma were no more. He
stated that the entries in the revenue records and the school
certificate established that he was the adopted son of
Savandaiah and in fact, in the caveat filed by defendant No.1,
he had been described as being the son of Savandaiah and
thus, his adoption had been beyond dispute.
4. He admitted that defendant No.1--Gangamma had filed
a suit in O.S. No.197 of 1981 seeking for a declaration that
she was the owner of the suit schedule properties on the
basis of the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 and the said suit was
decreed and the appeal filed by him in R.A. No.81 of 2001
was also dismissed.
5. He also admitted that as against the dismissal of his
appeal, R.A. No 81 of 2001, he had preferred a second appeal
before this Court in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2006, but the same
was also dismissed, however, with an observation that it will
be open for him to establish the factum of his adoption during
the appropriate proceedings by tendering appropriate
evidence and if such a question arose for consideration in
such proceedings, the same would have to be considered
independent of the findings recorded in O.S. No.197 of 1981.
He, therefore, submitted that the question of his adoption
had been left open and he would be entitled to establish that
he was the adopted son of Savandaiah. He stated that, if he
was the adopted son of Savandaiah, obviously, Savandaiah
could not have gifted the entire suit properties to defendant
No.1 and his mother and to that extent, the gift deed would
not be binding upon him.
6. This suit was resisted by Gangamma--his maternal
aunt. She stated that her title in respect of the suit
properties had been challenged by the plaintiff and she
therefore was constrained to file O.S. No.197 of 1981 and the
said suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed right up
to this Court in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2006 and thus, the fact
that she was the owner of the suit properties was beyond
dispute and could not be re-agitated indirectly.
7. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 also filed written statement,
denying the assertions of the plaintiff. They have stated that
the plaintiff was filing suit after the suit unnecessarily and he
had no claim over the suit properties which belonged to
Savandaiah, who had gifted in its entirety to two of his grand-
daughters Bhadramma and Gangamma.
8. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence
adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff
had not proved that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah
and that after the death of Savandaiah, by virtue of the
adoption, he became the absolute owner of the suit
properties. The Trial Court also held that the gift deed dated
02.09.1957 gifting the properties in favour of Bhadramma
and Gangamma were proved. The Trial Court, accordingly,
dismissed the suit.
9. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. In
the appeal, the Appellate Court after re-appreciating the
entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the
findings recorded by the Trial Court could not be found fault
with and it had committed no error in holding that the
plaintiff had not proved his case. The Appellate Court,
accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
dismissal of the suit.
10. It is against these concurrent findings, the present
appeal has been preferred.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri.G.R.Anantharam, contended that there was abundant
evidence on record which would clearly establish that the
plaintiff was indeed the son of Savandaiah. He sought to rely
upon the R.T.C. extracts to indicate that the plaintiff had been
adopted by Savandaiah and it is for that reason, his name
had been found in the revenue records.
12. In a suit in which a party seeks to prove a relationship
with another, Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
would come into play. In order to establish a relationship,
the opinion of a person who has special means of knowledge
about the relationship would become a relevant fact. In the
instant case, though the plaintiff contended that he was the
adopted son of Savandaiah, he did not adduce the evidence
of any credible person to establish this relationship. The oral
evidence adduced by the plaintiff was of PW-2 and PW-3.
13. PW-2 was his wife's sister's husband, who was also of
the same age as that of the plaintiff. Obviously, PW-2 being
of the same age, cannot possibly be aware of the adoption of
the plaintiff by Savandaiah and that too when the adoption
was alleged to have been made when the plaintiff was about
six or seven years old.
14. The other witness i.e., PW-3, merely stated he was a
relative of Savandaiah without specifying as to in what
manner he was related to Savandaiah. Even PW-3 was only
aged about eighty years and he would be more or less the
same age of the plaintiff and would not have any special
knowledge of the adoption. It is therefore, clear that there
was no oral evidence indicating the factum of adoption of the
plaintiff by Savandaiah.
15. It has to be noticed here that none of the plaintiff's
sisters nor defendant Nos.3 to 6 supported the plea of the
plaintiff that he had been adopted by Savandaiah. In the
absence of any credible evidence to indicate that the plaintiff
had been adopted by Savandaiah, both the Courts were
absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the
plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the adopted son of
Savandaiah. Reliance placed upon the voters' list cannot also
be of any consequence, since an entry in the voter's list that
he was the son of Savandaiah cannot establish the adoption.
16. Having regard to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff,
in my view, both the Courts were justified in holding, on
appreciation of the evidence, that the plaintiff had failed to
establish that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah.
17. In my view, there is no substantial question of law
arising for consideration in this appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT:SN
