Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Basavaraj alias Shivabasappa, a minor represented by his natural father, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1) seeking a declaration that she and defendant No.1 are joint owners of the suit property and that the adoption of the 2nd defendant (appellant) by defendant No.1 and late Sharanappa Mankar is null and void and not binding on them, along with a consequential injunction. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the adoption null and void, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The appellant, being the adopted son, challenged these findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed a substantial question of law regarding the validity of the adoption. The court examined the evidence and found that the adoption was not valid as it was not made with the consent of the husband (who was alive at the time of adoption) and was not registered as required under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in a second appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decree of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Adoption - Validity - Sections 7, 11, 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Adoption of a minor by a widow without the consent of her deceased husband and without a registered adoption deed is null and void - The court held that the adoption was not valid as it was not in compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adoption of the 2nd defendant by defendant No.1 and late Sharanappa Mankar is null and void for want of consent of the husband and for not being registered?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below that the adoption of the 2nd defendant is null and void.
Law Points
- Adoption without husband's consent is void
- Adoption without registered deed is void
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (04) 34
R.S.A NO.7044 OF 2009 (DEC & INJ)
Sanjeevkumar C. Patil for appellant, S.S. Sidhapurkar for respondent 1
Basavaraj alias Shivabasappa S/o Sharanappa Mankar
Sarsawathi W/o Sharanappa Mankar and Iramma W/o Sharanappa Mankar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and injunction challenging validity of adoption.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which confirmed the trial court's decree declaring the adoption null and void.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below which held that his adoption by defendant No.1 and late Sharanappa Mankar was null and void.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit in O.S.No.157/2003 on 24.06.2008, declaring adoption null and void; first appellate court dismissed appeal in R.A.No.22/2008 on 13.01.2009, confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the adoption of the 2nd defendant by defendant No.1 and late Sharanappa Mankar is null and void for want of consent of the husband and for not being registered?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the adoption was valid and the courts below erred in holding it null and void.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings that the adoption was invalid due to lack of husband's consent and absence of registered deed.
Ratio Decidendi
An adoption made without the consent of the husband and without a registered deed is null and void under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
This captioned second appeal is filed by the appellant - 2nd defendant questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff’s suit seeking relief of declaration to declare plaintiff and 1st defendant as joint owners and further to declare that adoption of 2nd defendant by defendant No.1 and late Sharanappa Mankar as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction is decreed by both the Courts by holding that the adoption of 2nd defendant by defendant No.1 and late Sharanappa Mankar is null and void as the same is secured in contravention of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.157/2003 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Chincholi seeking declaration and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit on 24.06.2008. The appellant (2nd defendant) appealed to the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Chincholi in R.A.No.22/2008, which was dismissed on 13.01.2009. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which was heard and reserved on 08.12.2022 and pronounced on 13.04.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 100
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: 7, 11, 16
