- 1 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100303 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. C.B. VENKATESHULU S/O. CHITALPUDI ERANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5. 2. C. RAJA REDDY S/O. CHITALPUDI ERANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., 2(A). C. SUMITRAMMA W/O. C.RAJAREDDY ERANNA AGED 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR APMC MARKET, BALLARI ROAD, KURUGODU, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI. 2(B). C. VISALAXI W/O. S.RAMAKRISHNAREDDY AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.75, WARD NO.23, AISHWARAYA COLONY, CANTONMENT, BALLARI. 2(C). C. DHARMAREDDY S/O. C.RAJAREDDY ERANNA AGED 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/AGRI, R/O. NEAR APMC MARKET, BALLARI ROAD, KURUGODU, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI. 2(D). C. BHASKAR REDDY S/O. C.RAJAREDDY ERANNA AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/AGRI, R/O. NEAR APMC MARKET, BALLARI ROAD, KURUGODU, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI. 3. HANUMANTHA REDDY S/O. CHITALPUDI ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: WORKING IN GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, R/O: HOUSE NO.241, 2ND STAGE, R - 2 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 1 MAIN GOKULAM, BEHIND GANAPATHI TEMPLE, MYSORE-570004. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. G. DHANALAKSHMI W/O. HARIPRASAD D/O. LATE GANTA BASAPPA BANDEMMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. WARD NO.12, DOOR NO.5, PAYAL LAND, REDDY STREET, BALLARI. 2. C. MUTTAMMA AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NO.12, 1ST CROSS, BYREGOWDA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560091. 3. CHINTALAPUDI THIMMAREDDY AGE: 57 YEARS, R/O. NO.12, 1ST CROSS, BYREGOWDA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560091. 4. CHINTALAPUDI SRINIVASA REDDY AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O. NO.12, 1ST CROSS, BYREGOWDA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560091. 5. K. SRIDEVI W/O. K.T.NAGAREDDY AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O. NO.12, 2ND CROSS, MODERN LAYOUT, HEROHALI, NEAR C.I.I.Q.BENGALURU-NORTH, BENGALURU-560091. ....RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJ AND SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.211/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II- ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND MENSE PROFIT. - 3 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This captioned appeal is filed by the defendants who are assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.211/2015 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Consequently, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deliver the vacant possession. Insofar as mesne profit is concerned, the trial court has ordered for separate enquiry. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that she is the daughter and sole surviving Class-I legal heir and successor of the late Ganta Basappa - 4 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 and Bandemma. She further seeks a declaration of absolute ownership over the suit schedule property and consequential relief of possession. The plaintiff alleges that she was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants in the year 2010, based on an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in mutation proceedings. Accordingly, she prays for a direction to the defendants to hand over possession of the property. 4. Upon receipt of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint. They contended that the present suit is frivolous and referred to an earlier suit in O.S. No. 8/2010 filed by the plaintiff, wherein she had sought an injunction against the defendants. Although the trial court decreed that suit in her favour, the appellate court in R.A. No. 125/2013 reversed the decree, holding that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants further asserted that, in the earlier proceedings, the plaintiff had claimed to be the adopted daughter of the late Ganta Basappa and - 5 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 Bandemma. They have specifically pleaded in paragraph 13 of their written statement that the adoption deed executed by the plaintiff’s biological parents in favour of Ganta Basappa and Bandemma was cancelled through a registered cancellation deed dated 26.10.1999. As a result, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's status as an adopted daughter ceased, disqualifying her from claiming any rights, including the declaration of ownership and possession over the suit property. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial court formulated issues. The plaintiff and the defendants to substantiate their respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff in order to prove her case, examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and produced 65 documents as Exs.P1 to P65. The defendants examined three witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3 and produced 14 documents as Exs.D1 to D14. The trial court while answering issue No.4 in the negative held that the cancellation of adoption deed dated 26.10.1999 clearly contravenes Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and - 6 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’). The trial court by recording a finding that there are restrictions on the adopted parents and biological parents in seeking revocation of the adoption much less by way of cancelling the deed. The trial court proceeded to decree the suit thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner, as she being the adopted daughter of late Ganta Basappa and Bandemma. Consequently, the defendants are directed to handover the possession. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants reiterating the grounds vehemently contended that the present suit is full of suppression of material facts. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed by taking note of the conduct of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants would point out that the plaintiff has not even whispered in regard to the adoption deed. Further, he would point out that the trial court grossly erred in casting burden on the defendants to substantiate the validity of the cancellation deed. He would point out that validity of the cancellation deed is not the subject matter of the suit. The defendants - 7 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 have only placed reliance on the cancellation deed to substantiate that the plaintiff cannot assert to be an adoptive daughter, as the said deed is cancelled. He would further point out that the defendants have succeeded in eliciting in the cross-examination of the plaintiff wherein she has admitted the cancellation of adoption deed. Referring to the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff, he would point out that the plaintiff for the first time during the trial has asserted to be an adopted daughter, which is evident from paragraph 2 of the examination-in-chief. He would further point out that the decree passed in O.S.No.151/2006 wherein the plaintiff is declared to be the adopted daughter will not bind the defendants, as they are not parties to the said suit. He would further point out that the cancellation deed is proved by the defendants and whether the said cancellation deed is contrary to law is not an issue involved and therefore, he would point out that issue No.4 was wrongly framed by the trial court and warrant interference at the hands of this court. Citing a decree rendered in O.S.No.8/2010, he would point out - 8 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 that the present suit is clearly hit by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. He also tried to persuade this court to take cognizance of the pendency of the writ petition in W.P.No.105246/2023. Referring to this writ petition, he would point out that virus of Section 15 of the Act of 1956 is under challenge. He would contend that right to cancel adoption if denied, the same would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further persuade this court not to decide the captioned appeal pending consideration of the issue involved in the above said writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would point out that plaintiff’s status as an adopted daughter is clearly established and proved in the earlier proceedings. Learned counsel for the plaintiff referring to the judgment rendered in O.S.No.151/2006 vide Exs.P4 and P5 would point out that the plaintiff’s status as the adopted daughter is substantiated in the said suit. Though the defendants are not parties to the said suit, the same would bind them. Therefore, he would point - 9 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 out that there is no question of suppression of cancellation deed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DANIRAIJI VRAJLALJI, JUNAGADH VS VAHUJI MAHARAJ SHRI CHANDRAPRABHA reported in (1975) 1 SCC 612. Citing this judgment, he would point out that cancellation deed clearly contravenes Section 15 of the Act of 1956. He would further point out that, once the valid adoption takes place, it is permanent and irrevocable. Therefore, the cancellation deed is contrary to Section 15 of the Act of 1956 and the fact that adoption is not disputed, the trial court was justified in conferring title on the plaintiff, as she being the adopted daughter of Ganta Basappa and Bandemma. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and learned counsel for the plaintiff. We have meticulously examined the pleadings in the plaint. We have given our anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties. The following points would arise for our consideration. - 10 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 1) Whether the trial court erred in casting burden on the defendants to substantiate the validity of the cancellation deed of adoption vide Exs.D2 by framing issue No.4 in that regard? 2) Whether the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that she is the adopted daughter and only surviving legal heir of the late Ganta Basappa and Bandemma based on an adoption deed dated 25.06.1999 is perverse and arbitrary? 3) Whether the cancellation deed dated 26.10.1999 is contrary to Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956? Finding on point Nos.1 to 3: 9. Before we proceed to examine the validity of the registered cancellation deed dated 26.10.1999 vide Ex.D2, we deem it fit to extract the stand taken by defendant No.2 in the written statement. Paragraphs 17 to 19 would be relevant, the same is extracted as under: - 11 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 “17. It is pertinent to submit that, the plaintiff, in earlier proceedings has claimed that, she is the adopted daughter of one Late. Ganta Bandemma and Basappa. But, the adoption deed executed by the genetical parents of the plaintiff and said Late. Ganta Bandemma on 25-06-1999 has been cancelled within a period of 4 months through another registered cancellation deed dated 26-10-1999. 18. Therefore, the plaintiff is not the daughter of said Late. Ganta Bandemma, as the cancellation of the adoption is valid and unchallenged by neither the plaintiff nor her genetical parents and the same became final. Therefore, there is no relationship between plaintiff and Late. Ganta Bandemma or her properties. 19. Further it is important to submit that, the plaintiff in her earlier proceedings has taken up a plea that, the adoption has been upheld by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari in O.S.No.105/2006. But, the present defendants were not parties to that suit and the suit property was different and nature of the claim in that particular suit was also different from the present suit i.e. whole suit was in respect of cancellation sale deeds with respect to property in Sy. No. 164C situated at Sanganakal Village. Therefore, the decree in the said suit is not binding on the present defendants.” 10. On plain reading of paragraph 17, the defendants have clearly admitted that the plaintiff was given in adoption to late Ganta Bandemma and Basappa, and accordingly, adoption deed came to be registered on 25.06.1999. The defendants who claim to be the distant relatives of the late Ganta Bandemma and Basappa are contesting the present suit by setting up a registered cancellation deed dated 26.10.1999. Before we proceed - 12 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 further, we deem it fit to cull out Section 15 of the Act of 1956, which reads as under: “15. Valid adoption not to be cancelled.— No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth.” 11. A plain reading of Section 15 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“the Act of 1956”), reveals the clear legislative intent behind this provision. Section 15 unequivocally states that once an adoption has been lawfully completed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, such adoption is final and irrevocable. The statute does not provide any scope for unilateral cancellation or revocation of a validly completed adoption, whether by the adoptive parents or the biological parents. This legislative mandate must be understood in the broader context of the sanctity of familial relationships and the welfare of the adopted child. 12. The core objective underlying Section 15 is to ensure stability in adoptive relationships by preventing arbitrary disruptions that could otherwise arise from - 13 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 attempts to revoke adoption deeds post facto. The legislature, in its wisdom, sought to safeguard the adopted child from emotional, psychological, and financial insecurity that might result if adoptive parents were permitted to cancel the adoption at will. It is well recognized that adoption is not a mere contractual agreement,it is a legal institution that creates a relationship akin to that of a natural parent and child. Allowing revocation through private arrangements would undermine the very foundation of this legal institution. Therefore, by enacting Section 15, the legislature placed a bar on any such revocation except through judicial scrutiny under specific legal grounds such as fraud, illegality, or procedural impropriety at the time of adoption. 13. In conjunction with Section 15, Section 12 of the Act of 1956 further reinforces the binding nature of adoption. It provides that an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive parents for all intents and purposes from the date of the adoption. - 14 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 From that date, all legal ties between the adopted child and the biological family are severed and replaced by corresponding ties with the adoptive family. This statutory fiction confers upon the adopted child all rights and obligations as if he or she were born to the adoptive parents. The consequence of this legal transformation is that the adopted child loses all rights to inherit or lay claim to any property belonging to the biological parents or their extended family. Simultaneously, the adopted child acquires full inheritance and succession rights in the adoptive family. 14. The legal fiction under Section 12 is complete and absolute in its effect as it alters the legal status of the child permanently and irrevocably. The statute mandates that the implications of this new status be given full effect in all respects, including property rights, family status, and legal obligations. Therefore, any attempt to undermine this legal transformation by means of a unilateral cancellation deed is contrary to the express provisions and the legislative intent of the Act. - 15 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 13. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes apparent that the execution of the registered cancellation deed dated 26.10.1999, as per Exhibit D2, is in direct violation of the statutory bar imposed under Section 15. Such an attempt to revoke a validly executed adoption through registration of a cancellation deed is legally impermissible and must be declared null and void ab initio. The law provides that adoption, once completed in accordance with the Act, can only be challenged through judicial intervention and even then, only on limited grounds such as fraud, coercion, undue influence, or non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Act. A private cancellation deed, even if registered, cannot have the effect of annulling a lawful adoption. Allowing such revocations would not only contravene the legislative mandate but would also compromise the welfare and best interests of the child. 15. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that Section 15 of the Act of 1956 ensures permanence - 16 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 and legal certainty in matters of adoption. If any party intends to challenge the legality or validity of an adoption, the only permissible method is to institute a suit before a competent civil court and obtain a declaratory decree holding the adoption invalid on legally sustainable grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in authoritative pronouncements, has consistently held that the irrevocability of adoption is a settled principle under the Act, and any attempt to revoke the same through a registered document is without legal foundation. Several High Courts have also taken a uniform view that a registered cancellation deed of adoption has no legal sanctity and is inadmissible in evidence. 16. Therefore, applying the above legal principles to the present case, we hold that the registered cancellation deed dated 26.10.1999, marked as Exhibit D2, is null and void, and inadmissible in evidence under Section 15 of the Act. Once this cancellation deed is disregarded, the status of the plaintiff as the adopted daughter stands reaffirmed, especially in view of the categorical admissions made by - 17 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 the defendants in paragraph 17 of the written statement. These admissions unequivocally support the claim of the plaintiff that she was lawfully adopted. Consequently, having established her legal status as the adopted daughter and, thereby, the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of possession. It is a well-settled principle of law that title carries with it the right to possession. As such, the plaintiff, having successfully established her title, is entitled to recover possession from the defendants, who have no independent legal right, title, or interest in the suit property. Accordingly, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, and Point No. 3 is answered in the affirmative. CONCLUSIONS: 17. Adoption under Hindu Law is Irrevocable and Immutable Once Validly Made; Section 15 embodies a core principle of Hindu personal law reform that once an adoption is validly - 18 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 completed, it becomes legally irrevocable, not merely as a matter of procedural bar, but as a matter of public policy and legal certainty. The law does not allow either the adoptive parents or the adopted child to reverse the legal consequences of the adoption. This finality ensures stability in personal relationships, inheritance rights, and the status of the child. 18. Registered Documents Cannot Override Statutory Provisions; The attempt to cancel a valid adoption through a registered deed of cancellation (Exhibit D2) must fail because Registration under the Registration Act, 1908 does not confer legality on a document that is per se void under a central statute. Such a deed contradicts the express bar under Section 15, and thus is null and void ab initio. Even if the document is registered and carries evidentiary presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it cannot override a substantive provision of - 19 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 personal law. This principle reinforces the supremacy of statutory personal law over documentary formalism. 19. Cancellation Deed Is Inadmissible in Evidence; Courts have repeatedly held that such deeds are not merely void but they are inadmissible in evidence. They do not meet the test of legal relevance or probative value under Sections 5 and 136 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court is not required to consider or evaluate such documents during adjudication, and they cannot be used to contradict the legality of a valid adoption. This was made clear in the Supreme Court's decision in DANIRAJI VRAJLALJI V. VAHUJI MAHARAJ SHRI CHANDRAPRABHA reported in (1975) 1 SCC 612, where the Court disapproved any extra-judicial revocation of adoption. 20. Declaratory Suit Is the Sole Permissible Legal Remedy; If any party seeks to challenge an adoption, the only lawful route is by filing a civil suit before a competent court seeking a declaratory decree. The plaintiff must - 20 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 prove that the adoption was not validly effected, due to absence of consent, procedural irregularities, or incapacity. The burden of proof lies heavily on the person asserting invalidity, especially when there is documentary evidence or judicial admissions supporting the adoption. Thus, the civil court alone has the jurisdiction to render a finding on the legality of adoption and not private individuals through instruments like cancellation deeds. 21. Judicial Admissions Bind the Parties and Reinforce Validity; The categorical admissions made by the defendants in their written statement, especially paragraph 17, reinforce the plaintiff’s case. Admissions in pleadings are binding and constitute substantive evidence under Section 58 of the Evidence Act. Such admissions waive the need for formal proof and obviate the requirement for further corroboration unless specifically retracted with explanation. These admissions reflect that the adoption was not only completed but - 21 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 was accepted and acknowledged by the family for a material duration, thereby precluding any later disavowal. 22. Doctrine of Estoppel Applies Against the Defendants; Given the long-standing recognition of the adoption and the subsequent attempt to revoke it, the doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act applies. The defendants, having once accepted the adoption, cannot be permitted to take an inconsistent position at a later stage, particularly when rights have accrued to the plaintiff. This reinforces the concept of legal certainty and prevents manipulation of family status for convenience or ulterior motives. 23. Status of Adopted Child is Equivalent to a Biological Child; Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that an adopted child shall be deemed to be a child of the adoptive parents for all purposes. This includes inheritance, succession, and proprietary rights. The adopted daughter in this case, - 22 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 therefore, acquires full ownership rights over the suit schedule property. Hence, she is entitled to possession, and the defendants’ possession becomes unauthorized, liable to be ousted. 24. If such unilateral deeds of cancellation are accepted in law, it would lead to catastrophic consequences, fundamentally undermining the institution of adoption. The severance of the adopted child from the genitive family is immediate and irrevocable upon a valid adoption; the child cannot revert to the biological family, nor reclaim any rights therein. Simultaneously, the child becomes fully integrated into the adoptive family, acquiring all legal, proprietary, and inheritance rights as if born to them. Permitting unilateral cancellation deeds would leave the adopted child in a legal vacuum stripped of rights in both families causing grave injustice and violating the certainty and finality that adoption is intended to secure. Such a practice, if entertained, would render the legal sanctity of adoption meaningless and - 23 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 place adopted children in a dangerously precarious position. 25. Title Includes the Right to Recover Possession; As per well-established property law principles, once the plaintiff’s title is established, she is presumed to be in constructive possession, even if actual possession is with someone else. The law entitles her to recover possession unless the defendant shows a better or independent title, which in this case, they clearly lack. The phrase “title carries with it the right to possession” reflects a foundational tenet of civil jurisprudence. 26. Broader Legal and Social Implications; This case upholds important public policy considerations. It protects adopted children from social stigma and legal uncertainty, especially daughters, in a patriarchal setup. It discourages misuse of legal instruments (like cancellation deeds) as tools of manipulation or retaliation. - 24 - RFA NO.100303 of 2018 27. For the forging reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh