Posts

Showing posts from May, 2014

Suit for partition - Adoption - Ex .B1 Reg. Adoption Deed executed prior to commencement of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act - His rights - Burden of proof - Evidentiary value - their lordships of A.P.HIGH COURT held that Ex.B-1 document further speaks the natural father of the minor boy Rosanna, by name Pullayya was no other than brother of her husband Rangappa and it further speaks out of two sons of said Pullayya, this minor boy Rosanna was the eldest. Leave apart, whether eldest son was to be given in adoption or not, she refers in the document executed in her favour by styling as an adoption as in future for the obsequies to her and to her husband a male child is required to adopt thereby with the consent of their husband as per Hindu Law she adopted the boy as her adopted son. Thereby from then this minor boy Rosanna as if her naturally born son, (naa owrasa putruni vale) her entire property to mean what the property succeeded from her parents (movable and immovable) this minor boy Rosanna will enjoy with absolute rights and perform to her and to her husband the obsequies in future. Hence, this deed of adoption (Dattu Sweekaara Dastaveju). In fact her property which she succeeded from her parents shall not form part of coparcenary property of her husband and the adopted son, even the adoption is valid, unless she conveys by transfer of her title by proper document over the property to the so called adopted son, by simply any reference therein. If at all there is any expression of intention it was not a transfer of any right in presendi, for not even a gift or settlement nor it conveys any meaning to say an ante adoption agreement. It speaks the intention to take the property and perform to her and her husband the obsequies in future. If that is the case, it is virtually a bequeath to take effect after her life time for the future enjoyment and the future performance of the obligations of obsequies etc. It is nowhere speaks to whom she executed the document even, but for by referring to herself in the initial lines while commencing writing of the document by referring as adopted mother. It is not even the fact if at all that he was already taken in adoption much less by her husband but for by referring this is the document for adoption. There is totally nothing about her husband was taking the child in adoption. There is nothing to say, when her husband was alive, under what right she was taken the child in adoption. There is nothing even to say the adopted parents of the boy given the child in adoption. It is not out of context to mention from the material placed on record that said Narayanamma who executed the document Ex.B-1 in her favour being wife of Rangappa stated got the properties from her parents and it is not even for her husband's properties to succeed or to have any right by birth. Her husband was not even one of the attestors to the document so called adoption document. It is thus invalid which creates no right to claim as adopted son and even no transfer of rights over her property or putting in possession thereunder the minor boy i.e., the 1st defendant appellant herein.= Kakarla Rosenna and others ....Appellants Thammineni Narasappa and others.... Respondents #Kakarla Rosenna....Petitioner $T.Narasappa and others.... Respondents = 2014 (March. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11048

Suit for partition - Adoption - Ex .B1  Reg. Adoption Deed executed prior to commencement of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act - His rights -  Burden of proof - Evidentiary value - their lordships of A.P.HIGH COURT held that Ex.B-1 document further speaks the natural father of the minor boy Rosanna, by name Pullayya was no other than brother of her husband Rangappa and it further speaks out of two sons of said Pullayya, this minor boy Rosanna was the eldest. Leave apart, whether eldest son was to be given in adoption or not, she refers in the document executed in her favour by styling as an adoption as in future for the obsequies to her and to her husband a male child is required to adopt thereby with the consent of their husband as per Hindu Law she adopted the boy as her adopted son.   Thereby from then this minor boy Rosanna as if her naturally born son, (naa owrasa putruni vale) her entire property to mean what the property succeeded from her parents (movable and immovable) th…