- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 108036 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RASHMI D/O RAMARAO DESHAPANDE @ SMT. RASHMI W/O SWAROOP KULAKARNI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/SERVICE, R/O. NAGARAL VILLAGE, TQ. GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMEETH KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL SRI. SHIDDALINGANAGOUD DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. SMT. GAYATRI W/O VISHAWANTH DESHAPANDE @ BALAVANTARAO DESHAPANDE, SINCE DECEASED R/BY ALLEGED LR’S., AJAYKUMAR A/F BALAVANTHAKUMAR DESHAPANDE, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SINCE MINOR R/BY ALLEGED MINOR GUARDIAN KRISHNAJI S/O BABURAO DESHAPANDE, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGARAL VILLAGE, TQ. GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG-582 114. RAMARAO S/O LAXMANARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 80 YEARS OCC: AGRI., R/O: VIVEKANAND ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, GADAG-582 101. LAKKAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA KAMATAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NAGARAL, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-587 113. LAXMIBAI W/O NARAYANARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NEAR SUMITRA HALL, LONAYAL, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. DIST: PUNE, STATE: MAHARASTRA-410 401. MUKUND S/O NARAYANARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. NEAR SUMITRA HALL, LONAYAL, DIST: PUNE, STATE: MAHARASTRA-410 401. KIRAN S/O NARAYANARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. NEAR SUMITRA HALL, LONAYAL, DIST: PUNE, STATE: MAHARASTRA-410 401. KALPANA W/O MILIND DINGRE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. NEAR SUMITRA HALL, LONAYAL, DIST: PUNE, STATE: MAHARASTRA-410 401. ASHOK S/O LAXMANARAO DESHPANDE (SINCE DECEASED HIS LR’S) LILA W/O ASHOK DESHPANDE, AGE: 70 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. FLAT NO.407, 3RD FLOOR, PEACE DESIRE, MUDDAYYANA PALYA, VISHWANIDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. ANIL S/O ASHOK DESHPANDE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O. FLAT NO.407, 3RD FLOOR, PEACE DESIRE, MUDDAYYANA PALYA, VISHWANIDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. ANITA W/O HARISH KULAKARNI, AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. FLAT NO.407, 3RD FLOOR, PEACE DESIRE, MUDDAYYANA PALYA, VISHWANIDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. DATTATRAYA S/O LAXMANARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: PLOT NO.302, SHIVA APARTMENT, 1ª A MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-72. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. SUVARNA W/O SHREEPADARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, KATTI CHALL, DHARWAD-580 008. SUDHEER S/O SHREEPADARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, KATTI CHALL, DHARWAD-580 008. PUNEET S/O SHREEPADARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, KATTI CHALL, DHARWAD-580 008. SHOBHA W/O GOPALARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NAGARAL, POST: NEERALAGI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-587 113. LAXMANARAO S/O GOPALARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NAGARAL, POST: NEERALAGI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-587 113. CHIDAMBAR S/O GOPALARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NAGARAL, POST: NEERALAGI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-587 113. ANNARAO S/O LAXMANARAO DESHAPANDE, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NO.25 WEST, ANJANAY TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-04. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE- A ON IA NO.22 DATED 30/07/2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RON IN O.S. NO.59/2015 WHEREIN THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 3 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC CAME TO BE ALLOWED AND PERMITTED THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR OF PLAINTIFF I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD, CONSEQUENTLY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 DISMISSED THE I.A. NO.22 FILED UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 3 CPC R/W SECTION 151 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. Ameet kumar Deshpande appearing for the petitioner. 2. Respondent No.1 is the only contesting party. Remaining respondents are not contesting parties. Hence, notice to remaining respondents is dispensed with. 3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.22 under Order XXII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, in O.S.No.59/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ron2. 4. The Trial Court allowed the said application filed by the guardian of minor to come on record in place of deceased plaintiff. The guardian claims that the plaintiff had adopted Ajay Kumar B. Deshpandey, aged 11 years, as her child, since the 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 plaintiff, the alleged adoptive mother, and her husband, had no issues. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier the application filed by the guardian of the proposed applicant was allowed and that order was questioned before this Court, and order was set aside and matter was remanded to hold enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code. 6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, in the enquiry, no evidence was lead to show that the adoption had really taken place after permission accorded by the Court under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 19563. Thus, he would urge that the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the adoption took place, relying primarily on the permission accorded by the Court to adopt the child. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that the adoption indeed took place, and that the intention of the adoptive mother is clearly reflected by her application to the Court to adopt the said Ajay Kumar, and by 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1956’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 the changes made in the school records, which reflected the name of the adoptive father. Thus, he would contend that adoption has indeed taken place and the Trial Court is justified in holding that the adoption has taken place. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. It is noticed from the evidence led before the Court that the guardian of the plaintiff has produced the records to show that the alleged adoptive mother intended to adopt the child, and thereafter adoption is claimed to have taken place. The Trial Court also proceeded on the footing that adoption has taken place after the Court accorded the permission under Section 9(4) of Act of 1956. 10. On going through the evidence based on record, it is noticed that, there is no such evidence placed as to when and how the adoption took place. The permission granted by the Court to adopt the child by exercising jurisdiction under Section 9(4) of Act of 1956, is not a conclusive proof of adoption; it only establishes the intention of the party to adopt the child. Whether - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 the adoption in fact took place pursuant to permission is a question of fact, for which, there has to be evidence and no such evidence was led. 11. It is made clear that adoption need not be registered. 12. Under these circumstances, the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 30.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.22 under Order XXII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Code, in O.S.No.59/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ron, is set aside. c) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to hold fresh enquiry relating to the adoption said to have taken place after the Court accorded permission. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14691 WP No. 108036 of 2025 d) After recording the evidence, the Trial Court shall give a finding as to whether the adoption has taken place or not. e) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. f) It is also made clear that the order to be passed on the application is not a conclusive proof of the adoption. It only enables the party to prosecute the matter. g) The claim relating to adoption has to be independently established in an appropriate suit. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9