In the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI C.R.P.No.1030/2011 BETWEEN: SHRI NARAYANRADDI ADOPTED S/O BASAVARADDI MULIMANI Age:35 YEARS, OCC PVT SERVICE R/O MACHANHALLI, TQ SHIRAHATTI DIST:GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ANAND R.KOLLI, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI SOMARADDI VENKATARADDI MULIMANI, AGE;75 YEARS, OCC AGRIL, R/O MACHENAHALLI TQ SHIRHATTI, DIST:GADAG. 2. SMT.DEVAKKA W/O SOMARADDI MULIMANI Age: 69 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI 3. SMT PADDAVVA W/O VENKATRADDI MULIMANI Age: 66 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI 4. SHRI SHAMBUNATH S/O VENKATARADDI MULIMANI Age: 29 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI DIST:GADAG. : 2 : 5. SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O VENKATARADDI MULIMANI Age: 14 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI DIST:GADAG. 6. SHRI VINAYAK S/O VENKATARADDI MULIMANI Age: 10 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI DIST:GADAG. 7. SHRI SANTHARADDI S/O SOMARADDI MULIMANI Age: 42 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI DIST:GADAG. 8. SHRI RAMESHRADDI S/O SOMARADDI MULIMANI Age: 40 YEARS, OCC AGRIL R/O MACHANAHALLI, TQ SHIRHATTI DIST:GADAG. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.MEGHA C.KOLEKAR, HCGP) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DTD:15-12-2008 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.05/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC., LAXMESHWAR, IA'S IN THE PETITION FILED U/O.22 RULE 3 AND 9 OF CPC., AND U/SEC.5 OF LIMITATION ACT ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This revision petition is filed by the appellant before the court below. The petitioner/appellant had filed three applications under Order XXII Rule 3, Order XXII Rule 9 and : 3 : under Section 5 of the Limitation Act interalia to come on record as an adoptive son of one Tayawwa w/o Basappa @ Basavaraddi Mulimani. The said applications were opposed by the respondents herein on the grounds that, the original adoption deed is not produced, the adoption is not proved and the petitioner is not an adopted son. The trial Court considering the evidence of the petitioner/appellant, Sub- Registrar, Shirahatti, natural mother and the witness held that, the appellant has not proved as to how the original adoption deed is lost. Has also not proved the adoption and accordingly rejected all the three applications as against which this revision petition is filed. 2. It is not in dispute that Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the of the registered adoption deed. It is not in dispute that it is issued by the Sub-Registrar’s Office. However, it is not in dispute that PW-3 Ramanna, the Sub-Registrar was examined in this case. However, the court below only proceeds on the basis that appellant has not proved as to how he lost the document. For non-production of the original document, the applications have been rejected. : 4 : 3. This Court in GANGAVVA AND OTHERS VS. NINGAVVA AND OTHERS (2008 (3) KCCR 1390) has held that if the adoption is registered, a presumption is created in law under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Even assuming that the original deed is not produced, the court below ought to have seen as to whether a certified copy of the adoption deed could be accepted as a secondary evidence or not, whether the evidence of Sub-Registrar proves the registration of the adoption, whether the natural mother’s evidence proves the giving of the natural son in adoption and the witness examined proves the adoption or not. Instead of considering these aspects, the court below only proceeds on the basis that the loss of original adoption deed is not proved and thereafter rejects the applications. 4. Though the decision of this Court is referred but no finding is given as to the presumptive value of a registered document. In case, if the presumption arises in favour of the appellant, the burden shifts on the person who denies the adoption deed to the contrary. In this case, the entire burden is : 5 : thrown on the appellant even without considering the fact of registration of adoption deed. Hence, I find the matter requires re-consideration as to: i) whether the certified copy of the registered document is admissible in evidence as secondary evidence or not? ii) whether the evidence of natural mother proves the giving of natural son in adoption? iii) whether the evidence of witnesses examined proves the valid adoption? iv) whether Ex.P.6 could be held as an adoption? 5. If these findings are arrived, based on the same an order be passed on the application filed by the applicant to come on record as adopted son. In this regard, I find the court below should be directed to reconsider the matter. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2008 passed in IA Nos.I, II and III in F.D.P.No.5/1989 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Laxmeshwar is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to it : 6 : to reconsider this matter in terms of the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also decision of this Court as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (Sd/-) JUDGE Jm/-.

Load more