- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 111816 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: UMESH ADOPTED S/O. MALLAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PATIL M.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOPAL S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. KUMAR S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. TIRAKAPPA @ MANJUNATH S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA KARIYAJJI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 4. SMT. YALLAMMA W/O. MANJUNATH PINIYAVAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD. 5. SMT. YASHODA W/O. HARIPRASAD AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ANANTARADDI COLONY, NEAR RAJA HOTEL, ANAMPUR, STATE: ANDRA PRADESH. 6. NETRA D/O. PARUSHARAMAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 7. NAGARAJ S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:42:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 8. BASAVARAJ S/O. DHARMAPPA NEKAR AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 9. KUMARI SHWETA D/O. DHARMAPPA NEKAR AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 10. SMT. HANUMAVVA W/O. PARASHURAMAPPA AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 11. ANASUYA W/O. PARASHURAMAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 12. VEERABHADRAPPA YALLAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 12 ARE R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 13. MUDDAPPA S/O. IRAPPA KARIYAJJI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., SMT. HANUMAVVA W/O. MUDDAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 14. YALLAPPA S/O. MUDDAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 15. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. MUDDAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 16. MRYUTYUNJAYA S/O. MUDDAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 17. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. MUDDAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 18. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O. CHANDRAPPA AMASI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 19. SMT. SAVITRAMMA W/O. GANESHAPPA HOOLIHALLI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 20. SMT. RATNAMMA W/O. SHRIDHAR NICHCHANAKI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 21. RUDRAPPA S/O. IRAPPA KARIJAYAJJI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., 21(A). SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 21(B). YALLAVVA W/O. JAYAPPA AMASHI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AMASHI HOTEL, NITUVALLI, TQ AND DIST: DAVANAGERE-577004. 21(C). MANJULA MANJAPPA HALLIKERI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ULLAGADDI ONI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA KARIYAJJI SINCE DECEASED ON 05.04.2023 BY HIS LRs., 21(D). SMT. RATANAMMA W/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA KARIYAJJI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 21(E). REKHA W/O. MANJAPPA MAALAGIMANI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GOKUL INDUSRIAL AREA, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580030. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 21(F). VEERESH @ IRANNA S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA KARIYAJJI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 21(G). KIRAN S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA NIBAGUR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., 22. RUDRAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 23. JAYAPRAKASH S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 24. BASAVARAJ S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 25. TIMMANNA S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 26. SMT. BASAMMA W/O. NINGAPPA HOSAPETE AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 27. GIRIJAMMA D/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 28. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KARIYAJJI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. 29. SMT. RENUKAMMA NINGAPPA AMASI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581119. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., 30. SMT. SATYAMMA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA PANEWAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. NEELAKANTAPPA RANEVAR, ANJANEYA BADAVANE DEVASTNANA ROAD, BEHIND CHAMUNDESHWARI TALKIS, DAVANAGERE. 31. MURUGESH RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KARIYAJJI ONI, TUMMINAKATTI, TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581119. 32. SHIVANAND S/O. RAMACHNDRAPPA NIBAGUR AGE : 32 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KARIYAJJI ONI, TUMMINAKATTI, TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581119. 33. MANU S/O. SATYANARAYAN NIBAGUR AGE : 23 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KARIYAJJI ONI, TUMMINAKATTI, TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581119. 34. CHAITRA D/O. SATYANARAYAN NIBAGUR AGE : 18 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT R/O : KARIYAJJI ONI, TUMMINAKATTI, TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581119. 35. MADU S/O. SATYANARAYAN NIBAGUR AGE : 15 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS UNCLE RESP. NO.34 MURUGESH S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA NIBAGUR R/O: KARIYAJJI ONI, TUMMINAKATTI, TQ : RANEBENNUR, DIST : HAVERI-581119. 36. SMT. BASAMMA NEELAPPA NIBAGUR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O : MEDUR, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE FOR R14 TO R17; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR, R23, R25, R27, R28, R30 AND R32; SRI. S.R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7, R10 TO R12, R14 TO R20; R8, R13, R26, R31 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R7, R9, R18, R19, R33, R34, R36 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R29 IS STAND DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2025; R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R31) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RANEBENNUR ON I.A.NO.IV DATED 04.07.2017 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW IA NO.IV WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the impleading applicant questioning the order of the FDP Court which has proceeded to reject the impleading application filed by the petitioner herein in I.A.No.4. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner in the pending final decree proceedings filed an application to come on record as legal heir of defendant No.4 who is allotted 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The present petitioner herein asserted that he is the adopted son and therefore, he is entitled to succeed to the estate of defendant No.4. Placing reliance on the adoption deed, an application came to be filed. 4. Upon a detailed and closer examination of the impugned order under challenge, this Court finds that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 procedure adopted by the court below is legally untenable and fundamentally flawed. The observations and conclusions arrived at by the trial court, while deciding the impleading application based on a registered adoption deed, are not only legally incorrect but also perverse, thus warranting the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial court, instead of confining itself to the limited scope of deciding the impleading application, has gone beyond its jurisdiction by making conclusive remarks on the validity of the adoption deed, thereby prejudging an issue which requires independent adjudication. 5. Several vital and material aspects have been overlooked by the Final Decree Proceedings (FDP) Court while deciding the impleading application filed by the petitioner. The trial court was required to allow the impleading application solely on the basis that the petitioner has produced a registered adoption deed asserting his status as an adopted son. The court was - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 expected to thereafter permit the petitioner to establish the validity of the adoption in the manner known to law. However, the trial court, instead of following this settled procedure, has proceeded to doubt the veracity of the adoption deed by placing undue reliance on a Will purportedly executed by defendant No.4 dated 01.10.2010, wherein she allegedly bequeathed her share in favour of one Jayappa. The court, on the basis of the absence of any reference to the adoption in the said Will, has concluded that the adoption is doubtful. This line of reasoning is flawed both factually and legally. 6. This Court finds the reasoning and conclusions drawn by the trial court to be wholly erroneous and misdirected. In deciding an impleading application, the FDP Court was not required to undertake an in-depth inquiry into the validity of the adoption deed. It was sufficient for the Court to take cognizance of the registered adoption deed produced by the petitioner and permit his impleadment, leaving the question of adoption to be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 adjudicated in pending FDP proceedings. Moreover, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the statutory presumption available under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which provides that whenever a registered document recording an adoption is produced, the court shall presume the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. The Court has also overlooked binding judicial precedents which clarify that the right to challenge a registered adoption deed is restricted and can only be exercised by the genetic or adoptive parents. A third party to the adoption, as in the present case, does not have the requisite locus standi to assail the validity of such adoption. This view is supported by the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.G. Purushotham (Deceased) by LRs. vs. N.K. Srinivasan (Deceased) by LRs. & Anr.1, as well as by the 1 RSA.No.498 of 2007 Dtd: 16.02.2024 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 coordinate Bench in Smt. Rudramma vs. Shri Shivamurthappa & Others2. 7. Furthermore, during the course of hearing before this Court, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 to 17 as to whether the Will marked as Ex.R-1 was duly proved in accordance with law. It was rather surprising to note that no attesting witness to the Will has been examined by the respondents. Despite this, the trial Court has relied upon the said unproven Will to cast doubt on the adoption deed on the sole premise that there is no mention of the adoption in the Will. Such an approach not only overlooks the procedural requirement for proving a Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but also suffers from gross irregularity in relying on unproven evidence to negate a registered document that carries statutory presumption. 8. Considering the cumulative effect of the above mentioned infirmities, this Court is of the considered view 2 RFA.No.100102 of 2015 Dtd: 08.05.2020 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 that the impugned order passed by the trial court is palpably erroneous, unsustainable in law, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The order under challenge, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 04.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.4 in the pending final decree proceedings, as per Annexure-H, is hereby quashed and set aside; (iii) Consequently, the impleading application filed by the petitioner under I.A.No.4 is allowed, and the petitioner shall be impleaded as a party to the final decree proceedings. (iv) The petitioner is permitted to establish and prove the adoption in accordance with law during the course of trial. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6058 WP No. 111816 of 2017 (v) The trial court is directed to proceed further in the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier impugned order or in the present writ petition, which are only for the purpose of deciding the impleading application. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15