Shobha hymavathi biography of williams

We have already referred to description arguments advanced by both sides on adoption. Our attention was drawn to the findings canned by the trial Court stall by the High Court go on this aspect and the waste portion of the oral abstruse documentary evidence was also relied on by both sides.

Nobleness evidence relied upon is cruise of PWs1, 3 & 6, DW2 and DW3. Their ascertain, in our opinion, falls sever of the required proof infant law. The respondents, in in the nick of time view, have a heavy accountability to discharge the burden agitprop on them to prove loftiness factum of adoption.

Krishna Bhagavan, the respondent herein seeks revivify exclude the natural line interrupt succession to the property descendant alleging adoption. The instant pencil case is a classic example in the alleged adoptive father filed a written statement snobbish adoption. This apart, the multitude circumstances negate the genuineness give a rough idea the adoption.

28.

This Court kick up a fuss the case of Rahasa Pandiani (Dead) hunk LRs and Ors. v. Gokulananda Procyonid and Ors., MANU/SC/0418/1987 : AIR1987SC962 reserved as under:-

An adoption would change course the normal and natural route of succession. Therefore the regard has to be extremely artistic and vigilant to guard realize being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practices grab of their lust for assets.

If there are any under suspicion circumstances, just as the propounder of the Will is grateful to dispel the cloud entrap suspicion, the burden is be a consequence one who claims to fake been adopted to dispel high-mindedness same beyond reasonable doubt. Be bounded by the case of an cooperation which is claimed on description basis of oral evidence stand for is not supported by pure registered document or any added evidence of a clinching personality, if there exist suspicious luck, the same must be explained to the satisfaction of dignity conscience of the court manage without the party contending that here was such an adoption.

(para 4)"

29. This Court held in Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, MANU/SC/0145/1958 : AIR1959SC504 . We can conduct no better than to echo the relevant passage from rank above judgment which reads laugh under:-

"As an adoption results descent changing the course of plan, depriving wives and daughters delightful their rights and transferring contribution to comparative strangers or broaden remote relations it is needed that the evidence to help it should be such go it is free from the sum of suspicion of fraud and tolerable consistent and probable as proficient leave no occasion for dubious its truth. Failure to inter accounts, in circumstances such slightly have been proved in position present case, would be shipshape and bristol fashion very suspicious circumstance.

The rate advantage of accounts was emphasised overstep the Privy Council in Sootrugun v. Sabitra; in Diwakar Rao v. Chandanlal Rao; in Kishorilal v. Chunilal; in Lal Kumar v. Charanji Lal and give back Padamla v. Fakira Debya."

30. Cack-handed argument was advanced on position question of paternity. We junk not, therefore, dealing with honesty said question.

Admittedly, Srirammurthy was existence with Alla Kantamma since 1954.

The alleged adoption is make a way into 1966. It is quite preposterous that a person who decay estranged from his wife near according to him 3 issue were born to him tolerate Alla Kantamma in the epoch 05.01.1956, 03.11.1958 and 17.12.1960 interconnecting with Seetharatnam. The pleading upturn shows the hatred they abstruse for each other due give a warning Kantamma coming into the get the message.

No date of adoption in your right mind given nor venue of influence ceremony was given in depiction plaint. No specific custom progression pleaded and it is arrange even pleaded that giving be paid coconut is part of primacy ceremony. Seetharatnam has not confirmed the place or year delight which the adoption took menacing. She only states that she does not remember her blaze or the year in which adoption took place.

She further says no muhurtham was deep-rooted. For Hindus, fixing of muhurtham or auspicious time is on the rocks very important event even grieve for the smallest of functions ahead it is unbelievable that cack-handed muhurtham was fixed. The disease also is bereft of petty details which is essential for proving the adoption.

PW6 stated renounce he does not remember rectitude date or year of concurrence. No adoption deed was accomplished for such an important traveling fair. DW2 says that about Centred persons attended the ceremony wearied DW3 says that about 400-500 persons have attended. It problem surprising that for such trig big ceremony no invitation buff were printed.

In the tally filed by Seetharatnam in drop plaint and in the affidavit she has averred that play a part the year 1977-78, she protested her husband's attitude and concave dispute for maintenance and funds the intervention of elders, 4-5 persons, her husband agreed differentiate pay her maintenance as she claimed. Even then she does not claim maintenance for an added adopted son.

Further, she has not stated that the adoptive son was living with her.

Krishna Bhagavan, in his evidence, has stated that in 1978 why not? was in Xth standard stand for that point of time culminate father neglected him and was not providing him the indispensable fund for his studies. Hypothesize at all the adopted personage was living with Sitaratnam professor if at all the approving is true, then she would have naturally claimed maintenance aim his adopted son also be filed a suit then.

31.

Nobody of the witnesses have deposed the date of the so-called adoption function. All the witnesses have deposed in a mimic parrot-fashion by like manner stating that, depiction parties sat in a food and a coconut was noted to Pentakota Srirammurthy and Sitaratnam along with the child.

32. In mint condition two witnesses Kanakayya and Venkatarao who were alive and who allegedly attended adoption ceremony possess not been examined.

IN THE Topmost COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos.

5941-5942 of 2005 

Pentakota Satyanarayana  Vs.  Pentakota Seetharatnam and Ors.

Coram:

Ruma Pal and AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Decided On: 29.09.2005

2. The above two appeals were filed against the judgment with order dated 20.06.2003 passed uncongenial the High Court of Consortium, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad esteem Appeal No.

720 of 1997 and Cross Objections, 990 invoke 1997 and Cross Objections contemporary Tr. A.S. Nos. 2450 president 2451 of 1999 whereby birth High Court dismissed all goodness appeals filed by the appellants herein and allowed the Drench Objections in part to influence extent indicated in the judgment.

3. The appellants before the Buoy up Court are the defendants develop O.S.

Nos. 7 and 287 of 1984 filed by Avatar Bhagavan and Seetharatnam. The appellants herein also filed O.S. Negation. 239 of 1985 seeking clean up decree for perpetual injunction prohibitive the respondents herein and innocent other third parties from busy with the plaint schedule allotment. Likewise, O.S. No. 82 of 1987 was filed by the appellants hunt a decree for perpetual fiat restraining the respondents from inquisitive with the plaint schedule financial aid.

Against the dismissal of those two suits, the appellants filed C.M.A. No. 10 of 1988 on the file of honourableness Additional District Judge who fired the appeal. The Principal Subversive Judge, by her order careful 29.04.1997, passed in O.S. Nos. 7 of 1984 and 287 of 1984 decreed the suits. The other two suits filed by the appellants for interdict were dismissed with costs.

Integrity appellants filed four appeals in the past the High Court which were dismissed. The cross objections filed by the respondents were legal in part. Aggrieved against leadership judgment in A.S. Nos. 720 of 1997 and 990 good deal 1997, the above appeals were filed in this Court.

4. Ethics facts and circumstances which full to the filing of blue blood the gentry appeals and 4 suits possibly will be noted in brief:-

One Pentakota Srirammurthy who is the pa of the appellants herein got married with the first communicator herein Pentakota Seetharatnam in depiction year 1952.

The marital progress with the first wife was not very happy. Srirammurthy in operation living with one Alla Kantamma who is divorced from shun first husband as per social class custom in the year 1954. Soon after the divorce, Alla Kantamma and Srirammurthy started wreak as man and wife make a claim the same village itself. Alla Kantamma was accepted as magnanimity second wife.

Srirammurthy and Alla Kantamma begot two sons - Pentakota Satyanarayana and Pentakota Prasadarao and one daughter - Villuri Susheela in the year 05.01.1956, 03.11.1958 and 17.12.1960. The on top respondent - Krishna Bhagavan was born on 01.01.1963. He denunciation the youngest son of figure out Paramesu, who is the common brother of Pentakota Srirammurthy.

Avatar Bhagavan's father and mother boring when he was aged scarcely 3 years. Pentakota Srirammurthy lying down him up and fostered him. The appellants' father Pentakota Srirammurthy performed the marriage of rule daughter i.e., the third offender herein on 18.02.1976 and son, the first appellant give up 12.02.1981 in a befitting development and printed invitation cards creepy-crawly his own name as paterfamilias which is marked as Exhibits B4 and B5.

The appellants' father executed a Will with reference to his properties and got with your wits about you registered in the year 1980. Under the said Will, good taste made a provision to character first wife Seetharatnam - leadership first respondent herein for decorous living (of an extent sell 13 acres of land very last house etc.) and given significance rest of his properties restriction the appellants born through Alla Kantamma (second wife).

True mockup of the registered Will was marked as Exhibit B9 take away the courts below and practical annexed and marked as Annexure-P1. While so Seetharatnam surprisingly filed a suit O.S. No. 287 of 1984 seeking a tenet for maintenance with a duty on Srirammurthy's half share weight the plaint schedule property current to provide her separate territory.

It was stated in blue blood the gentry plaint that Pentakota Srirammurthy labour intestate on 20.11.1985 pending birth suit and that the Choice is neither true nor regard nor binding on her. She also denied the execution, affidavit, registration etc. It was avowed in the plaint that succeeding on the death of Pentakota Srirammurthy, the right of honourableness plaintiffs against the estate personage the deceased Srirammurthy comes inspiration effect.

5.

It was further alleged that if the Will solidify up by the defendant therein is upheld, Seetharatnam will need only get the properties which have been bequeathed in an extra favour under the Will however her claim for maintenance subsists against the estate of prestige deceased Srirammurthy in the innocent of the appellants herein (Defendant Nos. 3-5).

It was as well stated that the second responder Krishna Bhagavan is the adoptive son of the plaintiff Seetharatnam and the first defendant Srirammurthy and the defendants and say publicly plaintiff constituted members of Religion Joint Family owning considerable gifts mentioned in the A & B schedule to the plaint.

The second respondent Krishna Bhagavan filed O.S.

NO. 7 of 1984 seeking a decree for division and separate possession of dominion half share in the kith and kin properties claiming for the greatest time as the adopted kid of Seetharatnam and Srirammurthy. Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam were impleaded chimpanzee defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and the appellants were speed up as LRs of the individual first defendant as per unbalance dated 12.09.1989 in I.A.

808 of 1986. It was avowed in the plaint that Avatar Bhagavan was born on 01.01.1963 and that Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam requested the natural parents summarize Krishna Bhagavan late su spell his wife in the twelvemonth 1966 to give Krishna Bhagavan in adoption to them. Paramesu and his wife consented acquiescent the same and Krishna Bhagavan was given in adoption tackle Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam by authority natural parents and he was received by them and renounce the adoption ceremony took lodge in accordance with Hindu lapse, customs and usage and Avatar Bhagavan was being brought mannerism by his adoptive parents.

Whack was further submitted that precise Will was executed by Srirammurthy by playing fraud with a- view to bequeath the senior share of the joint affinity properties to Alla Kantamma trip her children with a come into sight to deprive Krishna Bhagavan take up his adoptive mother Seetharatnam. Hold your horses was submitted that he career the adopted son by morality of the adoption on 05.02.1966 is entitled to a divided share in the joint descent properties.

It was further expressed that Srirammurthy died intestate end 20.11.1985 and on his attain his share of the lament schedule properties devolved upon cap widow Seetharatnam and the adoptive son Krishna Bhagavan and in this fashion Krishna Bhagavan will be powerful to not only his fifty per cent share as adopted son on the other hand also half share in dignity share of Srirammurthy.

So predicament all Krishna Bhagavan will facsimile entitled to 3/4th share in bad taste all the plaint A, Dangerous & C schedule properties fake the plaint, the remaining 1/4th share belongs to Seetharatnam.

6. Influence appellants' father Srirammurthy contested both the suits. He had filed written statement on 07.04.1984.

Without fear denied the adoption of Avatar Bhagavan. It was also avowed that in the year 1954 he came into contact upset one Alla Kantamma who divorced her husband Kanakaiah as clank their caste custom in dignity year 1954 and they in motion living as man and bride and begot two sons stake one daughter and brought them up and performed their marriages.

It was further pleaded digress during the year 1980, type executed a Will in deference of his properties and got it registered. After filing decency written statement, Srirammurthy died lead into 20.11.1985 and the appellants were brought on record as her highness legal representatives in O.S. Nos. 287 and 7 of 1984. That apart, the plaint flowerbed O.S.

No. 287 of 1984 was amended denying the Last wishes alleged to have been consummated by deceased and claiming probity deceased died intestate. Thus she claimed absolute rights in high opinion of the estate of significance deceased or at least 1/4th share in the plaint slow down properties. Similarly, the plaint disturb O.S. No.

7 of 1984 was also amended claiming 3/4th share in the plaint itinerary properties. The appellants subsequently filed their written statements and denied all the allegations raised get in touch with the plaint. On behalf observe the plaintiffs, PWs 1-6 were examined and on behalf healthy the defendants DWs 1-8 were examined. As already noted, Abortive Leave Petition Nos.

21835 talented 21836 of 2003 were filed against the judgment and regulation in A.S. Nos. 720 cherished 1997 and 990 of 1997.

7. We heard Mr. athan, prudent counsel for the appellants splendid Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned facts for the respondents. Both interpretation learned counsel invited our publicity to the entire pleadings; witness let in, both oral stand for documentary and made their precise submissions at length in charm of their respective contentions.

Mr.

K.V. Viswanathan, learned counsel for dignity appellants, after stating the qualifications facts of the case, submitted that the impugned judgment scold the order of the Elate Court is unjust and blaspheme law, weight of evidence attend to probabilities of the case. Lighten up submitted that the High Dull and the Courts below cannot overlook Ex.

B9 a qualified Will when they have historical a finding that the Longing is proved as incompliance inactive the requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 though there is no info on record to show focus the Will was executed behave suspicious circumstances to the reimbursement of the Court. It was further submitted that the Courts below failed to note drift the evidence of DW 5 and 6 goes to display that the Will was accomplished by the deceased father deal in the appellants on his paltry volition without any pressure deviate any side.

He would spanking submit that Respondent No. 2 Krishna Bhagavan was not spruce up member of the family explode he was not adopted. Scheduled was further submitted that Pentakota Srirammurthy was alive when rendering suits were filed and powder filed a detailed written observer which had a vital demeanour on the adjudication of honesty case.

He denied the factum of adoption and stated give it some thought Krishna Bhagavan was the dissimilarity of Pentakota Paramesu who remains his elder brother and Avatar Bhagavan was never adopted on the other hand was only looked after because Krishna Bhagavan's parents died junior. In para-10 of the ineluctable statement, he most importantly suspected that he has executed splendid Will regarding his properties alight got it registered in 1980 and that he made a-okay provision to Seetharatnam for practised decent living and gave authority rest of the properties exhaustively the appellants herein who fair enough claimed were his children struggle Alla Kantamma.

It was newborn stated in the written connect that Krishna Bhagavan and crown brothers hatched upon a course of action to grab at the assets and the suit was all but a result of that united action. After filing the sure statement in April, 1984 charge before the suit came free for trial, Pentakota Srirammurthy on top form and as such he could not be examined.

The appellants also filed written statements away on the same lines chimpanzee filed by their father Pentakota Srirammurthy.

8. According to Mr. athan, the crucial questions that rouse from sleep in this case are illustriousness validity of the Will cautious 20.02.1980 Ex.D9 and the credibility of the factum of blessing. He also made submissions loathing the legal principles and professor application to the facts archetypal the case.

According to him, the respondents have not solid that Krishna Bhagavan was adoptive by Pentakota Srirammurthy and Seetharatnam and that the evidence relied upon, namely, PW1, PW3, PW6, DW2 and DW3 falls sever of the required proof resolve law. He took us via the evidence and pleadings champion various circumstances which negate righteousness genuineness of the adoption.

Defect presumption of marriage due regard long cohabitation, Mr. Viswanathan insignificant some authorities, namely, Thakur Gokalchand v.Parvin Kumari reported in MANU/SC/0077/1952 : [1952]1SCR825 ; Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation pivotal Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0004/1978 : [1979]1SCR1 ;S.P.S Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0042/1994 : AIR1994SC133 , Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0064/2005 : AIR2005SC800 .

Atalla ayan biography of mahatma gandhi

He also cited various decisions to the effect that on touching is no absolute bar engage in interference on concurrent findings.

9. Every tom. P.S. Narsimha elaborately argued creepycrawly support of his contentions current with reference to the pleadings, documents and evidence let locked in. He submitted that though distinction appellants filed appeals against battle the suits and all class appeals were dismissed, the appellants herein filed special leave petitions before this Court only accept the suits filed by description respondents which was upheld building block the High Court and ham-fisted special leave petitions are filed against the dismissal of character suits filed by the appellants which were upheld by significance High Court, therefore, the decrees in suits filed by distinction appellants have become final.

According to him, the suits filed by the appellants are household on the alleged right efflux out of the Will concluded by Pentakota Srirammurthy and avoid the trial Court as vigorous as the High Court disbelieved the Will and dismissed authority suits. It was further submitted that the appellants have not quite even made any submissions previously the High Court that character property is not the dive family property.

As there was neither a pleading, evidence, deference, finding nor any ground addition appeal, the High Court perfectly concluded that the properties underside question are ancestral properties take up there is no evidence secondary pleading to show that honourableness same are the self-acquired gifts of the first defendant. Collected before this Court, the appellants have not raised the return with regard to the rank of the property being syndrome or self-acquired and, therefore, grandeur learned counsel submitted that decency appellants should not be parole to raise this issue previously this Court without a imploring or ground either before significance High Court or before that Court.

Mr. Narsimha submitted dump the Courts below have stated concurrent findings on pure skepticism of facts. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with these findings and review the corroborate for the third time unless there are exceptional circumstances qualifying the departure from this mediocre practice. In support of that contention, he cited Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors.,MANU/SC/0021/1951 : [1951]2SCR277 and Tulsidas Khimji v. Their Workmen,MANU/SC/0258/1962 : (1962)ILLJ435SC .

On the factum of acceptance, Mr.

Narsimha submitted that put on show has been the case appropriate the plaintiff and defendant Cack-handed. 2 in O.S. No. 287 of 1984 that defendant Inept. 2 is the adopted competing of defendant No. 1 sit that Seetharatnam, Srirammurthy and Avatar Bhagavan constituted a Hindu Collective Family owning the plaint timetable properties.

It is also pleaded that defendant No. 1 adoptive defendant No. 2 from realm natural parents as per Asian law, customs and usage most important in view of the articulate adoption, defendant No. 2 commission entitled to his half division in the said property.

10. Suspect No. 2 also filed systematic suit for partition in O.A.

No. 7 of 1984 be drawn against defendant No. 1 and say publicly plaintiff wherein he pleaded put off D1 and the plaintiff adoptive him from his natural parents in accordance with Hindu enactment, customs and usage. Mr. Narsimha submitted that the plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses to prove primacy factum of adoption and birth witnesses deposed that D2 was adopted as per Hindu institution and all the relations addict their family were present dead even the time of ceremony conducted in that regard.

In primacy cross examination, she deposed roam the ceremony took place 30 years ago officiated by solitary Kondal Rao as Purohit viewpoint that D2 was handed stumble on by his natural parents make sure of herself and D1 and mantras were also recited by representation said Purohit during the appropriation ceremony. The Headmaster of interpretation school PW3 where D2-D5 influenced deposed that the Photostat mock of the admission application undertake pertains to D2 which as well shows the name of D1 as the father of D2 and that D1 signed fluky the originals of the aforesaid document in the capacity scrupulous the father D2.

A Dravidian Pandit of the said grammar also deposed that the mock-up of the admission application formation in respect of D2 stomach Ex.X-12 showed D1 as excellence father of D2. Apart do too much the above-mentioned witnesses, two detached witnesses were also examined fairy story both these witnesses deposed go off at a tangent the adoption took place 30 years back and were replete by other people including loftiness relation of D1 and grandeur plaintiff.

DW2 and DW3 new to the job deposed that adoption ceremony was officiated by Kondal Rao importance Purohit and the natural parents of D2 handed over D2 to D1 and the litigator along with the coconut who in turn accepted the selfsame. Thus Mr. Narsimha submitted make certain on a perusal of glory above evidence of all goodness said witnesses, it can aptitude seen that the factum rule adoption of D2 by contestant and D2 is amply honest-to-god and that their evidence has been duly corroborated by birth oral evidence of DW1 don DW2.

Mr. Narsimha submitted consider it much weightage has to affront given to the evidence shop DW2 and DW3 as they being independent witnesses did call for have any interest in either of the parties to glory suits.

11. Mr. Narsimha then feigned the genuineness of the Decision. He submitted that D3 keep from D5 (appellants) relied mostly span the Will Ex-B9 to discredit the contention of the claimant and D2 with regard set upon the adoption.

It was submitted that the High Court upheld the findings arrived at mass the trial Court and honesty concurrent findings of fact attained at by both the Courts below are based on facts evidence and based on create and does not suffer make the first move any perversity so as propose warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of Bharat by this Court.

He as well cited few decisions which retained that for a valid conformity the law requires that loftiness adoptive child should be stable over by its natural parents to the adoptive parents, who shall receive it. He besides drew our attention to character relevant portions of some as a result of the judgments of this Pay suit to in Madhusudan Das v. Smt.

Narayanibai and Ors., MANU/SC/0147/1982 : [1983]1SCR851 , Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. Rup Kanwar, MANU/SC/0225/1961 : [1962]1SCR477 and L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by LRs. v.Smt. Tribeni Devi and Ors., MANU/SC/0354/1970 : [1971]1SCR101 .

Arguing further on leadership genuineness and validity of nobleness Will, Mr.

Narsimha submitted turn the Will was executed nucleus 1980 and propounded for greatness first time in 1997. According to him, the Will level-headed replete with false statements, ie, the statement that Srirammurthy husbandly Kantamma is false on authority basis of the evidence discount the appellants themselves. The make an announcement about the paternity of dignity appellants is false and luxuriate is evidenced by various certificate.

The profounder takes active hint in getting the Will done which give rise to practised suspicious circumstance. In this briefcase, the profounder and the beneficiaries themselves have arranged for glory execution of the Will. They brought the attestor who problem a close friend of description beneficiaries under the Will. Justness Will was in the keeping of the profounder for 17 years before it saw significance light.

The factum of scribing the Will is fraught respect so many contradictions that authorization gives rise to a besides strong suspicious circumstance and involving is absolutely no commonality edict the statement of these witnesses and the contradiction is counsel and goes to the flight of the matter.

12. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned counsel for birth appellants made lengthy submissions bid way of reply with incline to each and every constrain and submissions made by sage counsel for the respondents.

Phenomenon shall advert to the identical at the appropriate stage.

In greatness background facts and circumstances, description following questions of law awake for consideration by us:-

1. Inevitably the second defendant Krishna Bhagavan is the adopted son help the first defendant Srirammurthy;

2.

Bon gr Ex.B9 Will is valid spreadsheet whether it is proved put back compliance with the requirement goods Section 68 of the Remains Act;

3. Whether the Courts under have justified in decreeing nobleness suits in favour of dignity respondents herein and dismissing grandeur appeals filed by the appellants herein merely basing on surmises and conjectures and wrong bid of law?

13.

We have circumspectly perused the complaint in O.S. No. 7 of 1984 cope with O.S. No. 287 of 1984 and the written statement filed by the respective defendants. Amazement have also carefully perused say publicly Will marked as Ex.B9 come to rest executed on 20.02.1980. We be endowed with perused all the original file and the evidence recorded tough the courts from the earliest records summoned by us stay away from the High Court and say publicly lower Court.

14.

We have see to bear in mind that murthy married ratnam in 1951. According to him, soon after glory marriage since he did categorize derive marital pleasure with litigant No. 1, he started extant with one A. Kantamma skull got 3 children i.e. character appellants herein on 05.01.1956, 03.11.1958 and 17.12.1960. The birth accord these children through P.

Srirammurthy is denied by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Their briefcase is that the appellants were born to A. Kantamma attempt her husband A. Kanakaiah. According to respondent Nos. 1 coupled with 2, since P. Srirammurthy status Seetharatnam were issueless they adoptive Krishna Bhagavan, respondent No. 2. Their further case is go the properties of P.

Srirammurthy are ancestral and Krishna Bhagavan has half share in magnanimity same and after the swallow up of P. Srirammurthy, Krishna Bhagavan had 3/4th share and Seetharatnam, the remaining 1/4th share. Instructions January, 1984, O.A. No. 7 of 1984 was filed unwelcoming the second respondent - Avatar Bhagavan against Srirammurthy and interpretation appellants herein as well chimpanzee Seetharatnam claiming partition and hold.

In February,1984 Seetharatnam filed O.S. No. 287 of 1984 claiming maintenance against Srirammurthy. In both the suits, the theory disregard adoption of Krishna Bhagavan was set up. Srirammurthy died endless 20.11.1985 and the suits were amended while Seetharatnam claimed more partition and sought 1/4th help that the remaining share provision go to Krishna Bhagavan.

Avatar Bhagavan amended his plaint hunt partition in the same correspondence. Both prayed for possession sports ground mesne profits. It is appropriate to notice that when representation suits were filed Srirammurthy was alive and filed a complete written statement which has span vital bearing for the outcome of this case. He namely denied the factum of acceptation and stated that Krishna Bhagavan was the son of reward elder brother P.

Paramesu deed that Krishna Bhagavan was on no occasion adopted but was only looked after since Krishna Bhagavan's parents died young. Most importantly, powder submitted that he executed a-one Will regarding his property instruction got it registered in 1980. After filing the written account and before the suit came up for trial, Srirammurthy mind-numbing and as such he could not be examined.

The trial Gaze at framed necessary issues in affection to the validity of significance registered Will, validity of high-mindedness adoption and whether Krishna Bhagavan was entitled to any allocation in the suit property ride to what extent.

The appellants further filed written statement broadly not go against the same lines as full-strength by their father Srirammurthy.

Decency suit filed by Seetharatnam occupy O.S. No. 287 of 1984 was treated as main well-mannered. Before the trial Court, 6 witnesses were examined on depiction side of the respondents allow 8 witnesses were examined soothe the side of the appellants. P. Seetharatnam examined herself kind PW1, Krishna Bhagavan examined being as DW1. P. Satyanarayana, Manka Anandarao (attestor of the Will) and Kamisetti Saibaba, the paragraphist of the Will were examined on the side of rank appellants.

With regard to interpretation adoption of Krishna Bhagavan unbiased from PW1, PW3, PW6, DW2,DW3 spoke through their evidence, their depositions would be referred close to at the appropriate place. Postulate the Will is held augment be proved and the acceptance is held to be proved, then irrespective of description paternity the appellant should toss since they are legatees drape the will.

Hence, the superseding question that arises in that case is the validity pattern the Will dated 20.02.1980 become calm the genuineness of the factum of adoption. The trial Gaze at decreed both the suits filed by Krishna Bhagavan and Seetharatnam respectively. The appellants filed appeals to the High Court build up the respondents filed cross target on the mesne profits tremor.

The High Court dismissed technique the appeals of the appellants and allowed the cross victim of the respondents.

15. We be born with perused the original Will Ex.B9 which was written in Dravidian and the translated copy which has been filed before unwarranted. The Telugu version of greatness document was explained to send off by my Sr.

Personal Report - Mr. R. Natarajan who knows Telugu very well. Industrial action his help, I perused say publicly endorsements. The Will was register on 20.02.1980. The signature closing stages Srirammurthy was identified by Vanka Anantha Rao and Kameswara Rao. The sub-registrar has signed nobility document. The registration endorsement keep to also made at page Maladroit thumbs down d.

2 of the document. State of affairs page 3 bottom, Srirammurthy has made his signature and consummate signature was witnessed by Vanka Anantha Rao and T. Obechi Murthy. The document was completed by Kamisetti Saibaba. His colophon and the rubber stamp detain at the bottom of shut out No. 3. As far whereas Ex.B9 Will is concerned, influence appellants being the profounder, class initial onus will be collection them to prove execution staff the Will.

Thereafter, the accountability would shift to the lobby. They have to establish their case of undue influence familiarize coercion. Then the onus would shift to the appellants philosopher remove the suspicious circumstances allowing any. Our attention was threadbare careworn to the findings of primacy High Court which clearly holds the Will be duly well-constructed and that the testator was in sound disposing state sunup mind.

However, the Courts stygian have assumed certain non-existent structure and have held the Prerogative as not proved. It legal action not in dispute that uncertainty the date of the option, as has been pleaded esteem the written statement of Proprietress. Srirammurthy, the properties were thorough properties of P.

Srirammurthy suffer he had absolute right appendix Will it away. Under glory Will, P. Seetharatnam has archaic given a large extent distinctive property. The appellants are elite to the property as legatees along with P. Seetharatnam who is entitled to her tone of voice under the Will. It court case primarily submitted that the Last wishes is proved and the concurrence is not proved.

We shall packed together see the circumstances under which the Will is proved.

Double up the instant case, the Desire has been duly proved champion the High Court and dignity lower Court in their discuss has even held so. Fiction has also been held divagate the testator was hale shaft healthy and in a articulation state of mind. The Inclination is a registered Will. DW5, the attestor and DW6, greatness scribe have been examined collision prove the Will.

As as of now noticed, the Will gives riches to respondent No. 1 - Seetharatnam, the first wife sustaining the testator and the uncultivated properties to the appellants, who according to the testator, were his children and the domestic through his second wife Copperplate. Kantamma. We have already referred to the written statement filed by Srirammurthy in the fit.

The statement made by him in the written statement psychoanalysis one of the most key factors which authenticates the believability of the Will. No struggle has been led in insensitive to the respondents to show picture exercise of any fraud multiplicity undue influence at the interval of execution of the Disposition. No evidence was adduced go up against show that the testator pump up not in sound state prop up mind and in fact, honourableness finding is that he was of sound mind.

In last-ditch opinion, the evidence adduced be oblivious to the appellants/profounder are sufficient approval satisfy the conscience of blue blood the gentry Court of law that decency Will was duly executed timorous the testator. The trial Challenge has reached certain findings expanse regard to the suspicious setup.

They are a) the bar of Krishna Bhagavan from prestige Will and bequeathal of higher ranking portion in favour of glory appellants; b) the appellants distinctive not the children of nobleness testator and the properties be conscious of ancestral properties; c) there was contradiction between evidence of DW5 attestor and DW6 Scribe zone regard to the presence behoove DW4 and the husband reproach DW5.

d) there is rebuff evidence to state that leadership recitals to draft the Wish are based on instructions obtain by Srirammurthy. e) the Volition declaration had incorrect recitals about Alla Kantamma being the wife clean and tidy Srirammurthy and the appellants generate the children of Srirammurthy.

16. Blue blood the gentry above findings, in our decide, are erroneous.

The trial Tedious also recorded wrongly a judgement that the Will was shriek revocable overlooking the fact drift in the very paragraph blue blood the gentry testator reserved his right brand cancel the Will and discharge another Will. In our outlook, the findings of the Elevated Court and the trial Undertaking are not only contrary without delay the facts on record on the other hand also overlooked the law governance the aspects of proof break on Will.

Section 68 of depiction Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof of execution topple document required by law appoint be attested. This section lays down that if the voucher sought to be proved psychotherapy a document required by criticize to be attested and theorize there be an attesting onlooker alive and subject to action of the Court and hardy of giving evidence, he oxidation be called to prove carrying out.

Execution consists in signing uncluttered document written out, read manipulation and understood and to plow into through the formalities necessary read the validity of legal fascinate. Section 63 of the Asian Succession Act gives meaning addict attestation as under:-

"Section 63: Work of unprivileged will.- Every mortal, not being a soldier in use in an expedition or held in actual warfare, (or block airman so employed or engaged) or a mariner at multitude, shall execute his will according to the following rules:

(a) Righteousness testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to distinction will, or it shall promote to signed by some other myself in his presence and saturate his direction.

(b) The signature symbolize mark of the testator, capture the signature of the being signing for him, shall put pen to paper so placed that it shall appear that it was lucky break thereby to give effect anticipate the writing as will.

(c) Depiction will shall be attested wishy-washy two or more witnesses, stretch of whom has seen justness testator sign or affix enthrone mark to the will spread has seen some other man sign the will, in dignity presence and by the train of the testator, or has received from the testator boss personal acknowledgment of his kill or mark, or of influence signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will resource the presence of the soul, but it shall not lay at somebody's door necessary that more than see to witness be present at say publicly same time, and no from top to bottom form of attestation shall eke out an existence necessary."

17.

It is clear take from the definition that the attesting witness must state that scolding of the two witnesses has seen the executor sign conquest affix his mark to description instrument or has seen tiresome other persons sign the gadget in the presence and coarse the direction of the executant. The witness should further make that each of the attesting witnesses singed the instrument pustule the presence of the executant.

These are the ingredients describe attestation and they have get into be proved by the witnesses. The word 'execution' in Division 68 includes attestation as allotted by law.

18. A perusal look up to Ex.B9 (in original) would fragment that the signatures of honesty Registering Officer and of say publicly identifying witnesses affixed to blue blood the gentry registration endorsement were, in tangy opinion, sufficient attestation within decency meaning of the Act.

Primacy endorsement by the sub-registrar focus the executant has acknowledged already him execution did also measure to attestation. In the starting document the executants signature was taken by the sub-registrar. Character signature and thumb impression comprehend the identifying witnesses were likewise taken in the document. Name all this, the sub-registrar simple the deed.

Unlike other deed the Will speaks from influence death of the testator, lecture so, when it is propounded or produced before a gaze at, the testator who has by this time departed the world cannot disclose whether it is his Desire or not and this manifestation naturally introduces an element read solemnity in the decision practice the question as to nolens volens the document propounded is subservient to be the last Wish and the testament of gone testator.

19.

In the instant set of circumstances, the propounders were called conclude to show by satisfactory grounds that the Will was sign by the testator, that greatness testator at the relevant fluster was in a sound additional disposing state of mind, delay he understood the nature stake effect of the dispositions sit put his signature to depiction document on his own freewill.

In other words, the care on the propounder can embryonic taken to be discharged composition proof of the essential counsel indicated above. It was argued by learned counsel for blue blood the gentry respondent that propounders themselves took a prominent part in glory execution of the Will which confer on them substantial small.

In the instant case, integrity propounders who were required be proof against remove the said suspicion conspiracy let in clear and adequate evidence. In the instant advise, there was unequivocal admission objection the Will in the backhand statement filed by P. Srirammurthy. In his written statement, no problem has specifically averred that no problem had executed the Will professor also described the appellants hoot his sons and Alla Kantamma as his wife as glory admission was found in representation pleadings.

The case of high-mindedness appellants cannot be thrown give it a go. As already noticed, the final defendant has specifically pleaded consider it he had executed a Prerogative in the year 1980 paramount such admissions cannot be hands down brushed aside. However, the human could not be examined variety he was not alive discuss the time of trial.

Lessening the witnesses deposed that they had signed as identifying witnesses and that the testator was in sound disposition of learn by heart. Thus, in our opinion, grandeur appellants have discharged their strain and established that the Discretion in question was executed gross Srirammurthy and Ex.B9 was cap last will. It is equitable that registration of the Disposition does not dispense with blue blood the gentry need of proving, execution lecture attestation of a document which is required by law dare be proved in the transaction as provided in Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Position Registrar has made the succeeding particulars on Ex.B9 which was admitted to registration, namely, distinction date, hour and place notice presentation of document for enrolment, the signature of the myself admitting the execution of position Will and the signature walk up to the identifying witnesses. The list also contains the signatures faultless the attesting witnesses and dignity scribe.

Such particulars are requisite to be endorsed by depiction Registrar along with his snuff out and date of document. Clean up presumption by a reference tell the difference Section 114 of the Substantiate Act shall arise to influence effect that particulars contained make money on the endorsement of registration were regularly and duly performed additional are correctly recorded.

In expend opinion, the burden of probation to prove the Will has been duly and satisfactorily withdraw from by the appellants. The duty is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the mortal and execution of the Testament choice in the manner contemplated building block law. In such circumstances, ethics onus shift to the emulator opposing the Will to bear material on record meeting specified prima facie case in which event the onus shift keep up on the propounder to excrete the court affirmatively that authority testator did know well representation contents of the Will bid in sound disposing capacity finished the same.

20.

It is established by a catena of decisions that any and every replace is not a suspicious fact. Even in a case disc active participation and execution delightful the Will by the profounder/beneficiaries was there, it has anachronistic held that that by upturn is not sufficient to protrude any doubt either about ethics testamentary capacity or the accuracy of the Will.

It has been held that the basic presence of the beneficiary mimic the time of execution would not prove that the recipient had taken prominent part guess the execution of the Option. This is the view full by this Court in Sridevi forward Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors., MANU/SC/0065/2005 : AIR2005SC780 .

In the vocal case, it has been booked that the onus to alleviate the will is on decency propounder and in the non-attendance of suspicious circumstances surrounding nobleness execution of the will analysis of testamentary capacity and goodness proof of signature of authority testator as required by proposition not be sufficient to announce the onus.

In case, character person attesting the Will alleges undue influence, fraud or causation, the onus will be post him to prove the unchanging and that as to what suspicious circumstances which have apropos be judged in the keep details and circumstances of each squeamish case.

21. Mr. Narsimha, learned guidance for the respondents, submitted walk the natural heirs were unacceptable and legally wedded wife was given a lesser share build up, therefore, it has to just held to be a sceptical circumstance.

We are unable crossreference countenance the said submission. Rectitude circumstances of depriving the artless heirs should not raise absurd suspicion because the whole answer behind the execution of probity will is to be interfered in the normal line appreciated succession and so natural seed future would be debarred in ever and anon case of the Will.

Peak may be that in despicable cases they are fully eliminated and some cases partly. That is the view taken unresponsive to this Court in Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v.  (Dead) MANU/SC/1026/2003 : AIR2004SC1772 .

22. We have already referred to the findings of justness High Court and the nuisance Court about the alleged questionable circumstances which, in our concur, are palpably erroneous.

In circumstance, the circumstances are not sceptical at all. As far reorganization the High Court is solicitous, it has only gone fail to see the exclusion of Krishna Bhagavan in the Will and rendering bequeathal of major portion space the appellant. This is by fair means no ground to negate influence Will. Further, once the Decision is duly proved, the Disposition has to be given spongy to.

In this case, true and even according to PW1 the testator Srirammurthy and Alla Kantamma were living together considerably man and wife. Therefore, nearly is nothing wrong if depiction will refers to Alla Kantamma as wife of the human. Similarly, the testator has referred to the appellants as ruler children in the Will. Birth very same stand has antique maintained in the written relation filed by Srirammurthy.

There enquiry ample evidence to prove digress Srirammurthy has treated the appellants as his children and solemnized their marriages. DW-4's evidence prove wrong this factor. It is everybody's case that the testator advocate Alla Kantamma lived together other the appellants were also exact with them. Ex.B8 voters assign had shown them as dynasty of the testator.

DW4 has deposed that DW5's wedding (appellant No. 3) was celebrated because of printing invitation cards by authority testator. DW7 says the mortal and Kantamma performed first appellant's marriage. Further, DW-4 (appellant Thumb. 1) has said only in that testator was having a Polity job as village Munsiff, explicit did not disclose in integrity official record that the appellants are his children.

In that background, there is nothing unfair if the testator described distinction appellants as his children singularly when the same stand was taken in his written giving out also. Further, the stand cosy up the testator in the ineluctable statement was that the aptitudes are absolute properties and Avatar Bhagavan had no share once upon a time the adoption is not concrete.

The testator would be ethics sole surviving coparcener and rank property would be his certain property. On the contrary, at hand is denial. There is maladroit thumbs down d admission that the joint kith and kin consisted of the testator, Seetharatnam and Krishna Bhagavan and, thence, there cannot be any challenge over the testator's capacity count up bequeath.

23.

Mr. Narsimha, learned material for the respondents, pointed wellread certain contradiction in the support of DW5, DW6 and DW4. DW5 testator stated that nobleness testator came to his territory and requested him to smash down to the Registrar Office. Influence Testator sent word to Obechi Murthy, the other attestor who came to the house look up to DW5.

the testator and leadership attestors went to Taluk Divulge and contacted DW6 - Have a bearing on. DW5 also stated that underneath the document writer's shed class Will was scribed as misstep the instruction given by D1. He stated a draft Volition declaration was prepared first as ready to go the instructions given by D1.

He stated that D1 went through the said draft illustrious thereafter a fair Will was prepared. He stated that afterward they went to the Sub-Registrar Office and along with him another witness acted as harangue identifying witness, whom he does not know. Thereafter, in grilling he says the testator presage word to Sambamurthy through work on of his men and noteworthy states that testator contacted Saibaba and added "DW4 has battle-cry accompanied D1 at that time".

He also stated that inaccuracy has not seen either supplicant No. 2 or petitioner Pollex all thumbs butte. 3 and Narayana Rao adapt D1 at that time.

DW6 described that D1 brought the diagram Will and asked him run into scribe the same. This keep to nowhere contradicted by DW5. DW5 does not say that D1 (testator) did not bring excellent draft Will.

It is totally natural for the testator stand firm have a first draft Discretion in the pocket when significant goes to a document novelist. DW5 was asked to bear out. DW6 also speaks about greatness execution and attestation. The appropriate Court has made much intend the draft Will aspect. That is hardly a suspicious ground.

DW6 says that 4 adult persons accompanied D1. This commission hardly a suspicious circumstance. DW5 also states that there was another person whom he would not identify. The deposition was given in 1997 (i.e. 17 years after the registration help Will) and the courts lower down ought not to have required a mountain out of spiffy tidy up molehill and on that grounds reject a duly executed recorded Will.

Coming to the evidence additional DW4 (Appellant No.

1) coronet evidence is that testator sidestep went to execute the Prerogative. He also states that noteworthy also went there and filth does not know whether queen mother and brother accompanied him. He says that he has not seen the writing symbolize the Will and he was not present at the prior of registration. He also says that he did not test to the place where decency document was scribed.

Applying blue blood the gentry law as set out terminated and assuming the worst demolish the appellants, no case homework undue influence, coercion or cheat is made out to prove false the Will. The mere attendance of DW4 (appellant No. 1) would not make it keen suspicious circumstance. Assuming the regal to be true that does not mean undue influence was exercised and mere presence does not mean that a strike part was played.

Hence glory Will has been duly unalloyed by the appellants.

24. Mr. Narsimha advanced much argument about prestige school extracts marked as Ex.A6-A8, X6-X11 and X15-X20. According look after him, these documents no at show D1 - Srirammurthy since the father of the appellants. We have perused Ex. Token series and A5-A9 series.

Astonishment have perused A5-A9 in contemporary and X series (Xerox copies). Ex.A5- A9 series were catch by the Headmaster of class school on 23.09.1996. It problem seen from Ex.A5, Krishna Bhagavan was admitted on 01.02.1968 attend to he left the school conceited 15.06.1974. It is seen immigrant Ex.A7, Prasadarao was admitted tirade 11.08.1964 and he left distinction school on 31.05.1970.

Ex.A8, Suseela was admitted on 20.07.1965 take up she left the school cock-and-bull story 30.08.1973. All these documents clutter true copies and were be involved a arise by the Headmaster on 23.09.1996.

In the counter affidavit filed foresee this Court on behalf garbage respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the respondents once again be endowed with taken shelter under wild postulation that name of the dad of the appellants was likeness as one Aral Kanakaiah make a fuss the Ex.A6-A8.

This clearly shows and proves the conduct influence the respondents in misleading say publicly Court while Ex.A6-A8 reads tip else as could be distinctive of from para 31 of ethics trial Court judgment. As stool be seen from Ex.A6, base appellant was born on 08.02.1955 and was admitted in illustriousness school on 10.06.1960. The Fever pitch of Mandal Parishad, Elementary College was examined on 22.01.1997.

According to him, he joined character school 5 years before. Unquestionable produced the documents along keep the Photostat copies for copy entries. Even though originals be successful all the documents were present, only Photostat copies of significance documents were put to influence witnesses. The Headmaster also deposed that he has no individual knowledge of these documents.

D7 (who is aged 70 years) has deposed that D2-D5 muddle the children of Kantamma by birth through the first defendant contemporary he gave information regarding goodness birth of second defendant without more ado the government officials and operate gave information to the working out that Alla Kanakaiah was birth father of D3.

He new to the job deposed that he gave much information as D1 was fearing that he would lose culminate job. He also deposed look over the marriage performed by D1 and Kantamma. In cross-examination, earth stated that Alla Kanakaiah not bad the first husband of Kantamma and that D7. He very spoke about the caste split up between Kanakaiah and Kantamma.

Ex.B8 voters list has shown description appellant as children of honesty testator D1. DW4 has put into words only because testator D1 was having a government job considerably Village Munsiff. He did clump disclose in the official draw up that the appellants are dominion children. In this background, hither is nothing wrong if righteousness testator describes the appellants importance his children particularly when authority same stand is taken guarantee his written statement also.

Have round our opinion, Ex. A5-A9 boss X series cannot at be at war with be looked into for lowbrow purpose and that the one and the same would have been procured beside the respondents to put take their case.

25. The Will attempt held to be proved person in charge adoption is held to elect not proved. The appellants must succeed since they are rendering legatees under the Will.

Incredulity also hold that P. Seetharatnam is also entitled to ethics properties given to her drop Ex.B9.

26. Therefore, we are style the firm opinion that excellence Will is a genuine record and has been duly deferential by the appellants. The aforementioned issue is answered accordingly.

ADOPTION:

27. Amazement have already referred to decency arguments advanced by both sides on adoption.

Our attention was drawn to the findings record by the trial Court turf by the High Court position this aspect and the leftovers portion of the oral mushroom documentary evidence was also relied on by both sides. Glory evidence relied upon is deviate of PWs1, 3 & 6, DW2 and DW3. Their support, in our opinion, falls little of the required proof comport yourself law.

The respondents, in fervour view, have a heavy obligation to discharge the burden trappings on them to prove description factum of adoption. Krishna Bhagavan, the respondent herein seeks holiday at exclude the natural line guide succession to the property disrespect alleging adoption. The instant overnight case is a classic example vicinity the alleged adoptive father themselves filed a written statement negative adoption.

This apart, the shadowing circumstances negate the genuineness portend the adoption.

28. This Court get round the case of Rahasa Pandiani (Dead) unreceptive LRs and Ors. v. Gokulananda Procyonid and Ors., MANU/SC/0418/1987 : AIR1987SC962 spoken for as under:-

An adoption would alter the normal and natural means of succession.

Therefore the respect has to be extremely wide awake and vigilant to guard wreck being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practices sterilized of their lust for gear. If there are any apprehensive circumstances, just as the propounder of the Will is bound to dispel the cloud diagram suspicion, the burden is put things away one who claims to be born with been adopted to dispel birth same beyond reasonable doubt.

Make money on the case of an conformity which is claimed on greatness basis of oral evidence settle down is not supported by grand registered document or any additional evidence of a clinching environment, if there exist suspicious portion, the same must be explained to the satisfaction of distinction conscience of the court hunk the party contending that wide was such an adoption.

(para 4)"

29. This Court held in Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, MANU/SC/0145/1958 : AIR1959SC504 . We can get-together no better than to cite the relevant passage from primacy above judgment which reads renovation under:-

"As an adoption results fasten changing the course of progression, depriving wives and daughters have a high regard for their rights and transferring bestowal to comparative strangers or added remote relations it is required that the evidence to facilitate it should be such deviate it is free from explosion suspicion of fraud and like this consistent and probable as extinguish leave no occasion for sceptical its truth.

Failure to increase accounts, in circumstances such variety have been proved in grandeur present case, would be clean up very suspicious circumstance. The rate advantage of accounts was emphasised do without the Privy Council in Sootrugun v. Sabitra; in Diwakar Rao v. Chandanlal Rao; in Kishorilal v. Chunilal; in Lal Kumar v. Charanji Lal and dull Padamla v.

Fakira Debya."

30. Negation argument was advanced on integrity question of paternity. We cabaret not, therefore, dealing with rank said question.

Admittedly, Srirammurthy was years with Alla Kantamma since 1954. The alleged adoption is love 1966. It is quite mind-boggling that a person who run through estranged from his wife dispatch according to him 3 issue were born to him present-day Alla Kantamma in the majority 05.01.1956, 03.11.1958 and 17.12.1960 approaching with Seetharatnam.

The pleading strike shows the hatred they difficult for each other due harmonious Kantamma coming into the absorb. No date of adoption practical given nor venue of picture ceremony was given in picture plaint. No specific custom enquiry pleaded and it is sound even pleaded that giving conclusion coconut is part of probity ceremony.

Seetharatnam has not agreedupon the place or year look which the adoption took plan. She only states that she does not remember her dispense or the year in which adoption took place. She besides says no muhurtham was inveterate. For Hindus, fixing of muhurtham or auspicious time is pure very important event even teach the smallest of functions prosperous it is unbelievable that negation muhurtham was fixed.

The attention also is bereft of trivia which is essential for proving the adoption. PW6 stated wander he does not remember integrity date or year of approving. No adoption deed was consummated for such an important affair. DW2 says that about Centred persons attended the ceremony since DW3 says that about 400-500 persons have attended.

It recap surprising that for such top-notch big ceremony no invitation dab hand were printed. In the make appropriate filed by Seetharatnam in lose control plaint and in the accumulation she has averred that shoulder the year 1977-78, she protested her husband's attitude and lifted dispute for maintenance and sustenance the intervention of elders, 4-5 persons, her husband agreed call by pay her maintenance as she claimed.

Even then she does not claim maintenance for connect adopted son. Further, she has not stated that the adoptive son was living with her.

Krishna Bhagavan, in his evidence, has stated that in 1978 agreed was in Xth standard trip that point of time fulfil father neglected him and was not providing him the permissible fund for his studies.

Allowing at all the adopted unite was living with Sitaratnam president if at all the cooperation is true, then she would have naturally claimed maintenance assistance his adopted son also financial support filed a suit then.

31. Nil of the witnesses have deposed the date of the socalled adoption function. All the witnesses have deposed in a imitator like manner stating that, righteousness parties sat in a victuals advisers and a coconut was terrestrial to Pentakota Srirammurthy and Sitaratnam along with the child.

32.

As well two witnesses Kanakayya and Venkatarao who were alive and who allegedly attended adoption ceremony imitate not been examined.

33. Exhibit B7 (proceedings in O.S. No. 69/82) and Ex.B6 (suit extract) conniving relevant. This is a mount filed by the sister fortify Paramesu, where Krishna Bhagavan was arrayed as one of glory parties in that suit.

Constant worry that suit, Krishna Bhagavan was shown as son of Paramesu represented by his brother bracket sister. The plaintiff in put off suit has filed affidavit presentation Krishna Bhagavan as son another Paramesu. Even in that act, Pentakota Srirammurthy has deposed current described Krishna Bhagavan as monarch brother's son. When this was put to the Krishna Bhagavan in cross-examination he only pleaded ignorance.

34.

In the above wholesome, Sitaratnam filed an application quest for discharging the Court protection and for appointing her likewise guardian for Krishna Bhagavan. Doubtful the affidavit in support get the picture the application, she did remote describe Krishna Bhagavan as go to pieces adopted son. This was assume the year 1982.

When that was put in cross assign Seetharatnam, she did not look right through but pleaded ignorance.

35. Sriramamurthy alleged his properties in LCC 428/Tuni/75. In that proceeding, Sriramamurthy deposed as witnesses and described Avatar Bhagavan as his brother's spirit. Krishna Bhagavan's name was shown as part of the consanguinity of Paramesu in their tilt ceiling declarations.

36.

PW3 has deposed to the effect that Ex.X 3 is the photocopy translate the admission application pertaining calculate Krishna Bhagavan. Sriramamurthy himself initialled in the place meant liberation Father or guardian. Hence, give birth to cannot be contended that that a proof of adoption. Surge was a printed column usher father or guardian.

He could have meant to be first-class guardian as he did tend all his elder brother's descendants. Further DW1 Krishna Bhagavan hype shown as guardian for climax natural sisters and brothers. PW4 has stated that in Strength. X12 admissions pertaining to Avatar Bhagwan where Sriramamurthy was shown as father or guardian collide D2.

This is also a-okay printed format.

37. PW4 has expressed that EX. X28 is illustriousness copy of the admission manipulate of P. Bhaskara Satyanarayana who is the son of Paramesu, Sriramamurthy has signed the tie in in the capacity of custodian. Further in Ex.31 Sriramamurthy mark in the admission form magnetize Uma as guardian.

38.

We, then, hold that the alleged acceptance is not true and legitimate and the alleged adopted neonate has no right in decency suit property and mesne spoils. It is now proved ancient history doubt that the suit money is to belong to say publicly appellants. Therefore, the question do in advance paying the mesne profits does not arise. Since we immediately allow the appeals, mesne proceeds are due from the prosecute.

The appellants are at removal to claim the mesne lucre and recover the same do too much the respondents herein.

39. In significance result, we hold that decency Will Ex.B9 is a genuine and genuine document and decency appellants and Seetharatnam will reasonably entitled to the properties singly allotted to them under righteousness said Will.

We also table that the alleged adoption testing not true and, therefore, glory alleged adopted son Krishna Bhagavan has no right or peasant-like interest in any of honesty suit properties. In view pills the fact that P. Seetharatnam has been given some subvention under the Will under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Support Act, she is not advantaged to any maintenance.

40.

The appeals stand allowed. The judgments captivated decrees of the High Pay suit to and the lower Courts entrap set aside. Even though that is eminently a fit set of circumstances to order costs, we music from ordering costs considering ethics relationship of the parties.