- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1568 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 1A. BASAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS BHYRAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 1B. KANTHARAJU S/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 1C. ONKARAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1(A) TO 1(C) ARE R/O DUMMI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. 1(D) JAYAMMA W/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BANNIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002. 1(E) PUTTAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O SINGENAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) SHIVALINGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS PRAKASHA S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 1(B) GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 1(C) SUDHA D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 1(D) RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 2. 2(A) UJJINAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS GANGAMMA W/O LATE UJJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2(B) HALESHA S/O LATE UJJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 2(C) ANANDA S/O LATE UJJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2(D) VIJAYA D/O LATE UJJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O DUMMI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. MADHUSUDHAN ADIGA, ADV. FOR R1(A TO D) (ABSENT); SRI. SHIVAMURTHY, ADV. FOR R2(A TO C) (ABSENT); R2(D) SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 24.07.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2005 ON THE FILE OF SENOIR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.116/1995 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HOLALKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is against a concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. This appeal was admitted on 20.08.2019, to answer the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Courts below are justified in passing the judgment and decree without framing the issue under Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC regarding the adoption of plaintiff by one Rangappa S/o Ramanna when a specific contention has been taken in the plaint that he has succeeded to the property from Rangappa as an adopted son?" 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction on the premise that the suit properties are allotted to his share by his adoptive father namely Rangappa and adoptive mother Hanumavva. 3. The plaintiff claims that his natural mother is Kenchavva and he was given in adoption to Rangappa son of Ramanna. From the other materials placed on record, it appears that the plaintiff is claiming that his grandfather - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 Rangappa, (the father of Kenchavva) adopted the plaintiff. The date of adoption is not pleaded in the plaint. 4. The defendants disputed the status of the plaintiff as the adopted son of Rangappa. The defendants took a stand that Ramanna, the propositus had 3 daughters by name Kenchavva, Lakkamma and Gangavva. 5. It is the stand of the defendants that there was a partition in the family and in the partition, the properties were divided between Kenchavva, Lakkamma and Gangavva. The defendants have also not stated as to when the oral partition took place. However there is mutation entry at Exs.P3, P4 and P5. However, no records are produced by either parties to establish the oral partition as pleaded by both of them. 6. The plaintiff also claims that he purchased items No.2 and 5 of the suit schedule from the income derived from items No.3 and 4 of the suit schedule and claimed declaration of ownership based on the sale deed. The sale - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 deed is produced. However, the suit is dismissed in respect of those properties also. 7. The trial Court have framed issues relating to plaintiff's ownership of the suit schedule property and the specific issue is also framed relating to ownership of item No.4 of the suit schedule. 8. Two additional issues are framed relating to oral partition claimed by the defendants. 9. The trial Court has held that the previous partition pleaded by the defendants is established and consequently dismissed the suit. 10. First Appellate Court on the appeal filed by the plaintiff has dismissed the appeal and also recorded a specific finding that the plaintiff has not established the adoption. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs /appellants would submit that though the plaintiff claimed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 the status as adopted son of Rangappa, no specific issue is framed and the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established ownership. First Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved adoption without there being any issue. He would further submit that items No.2 and 5 properties are purchased from the income of items No.3 and 4 and the properties purchased in the name of the plaintiff would become the self acquired property. 12. It is also his further submission that the appellant has filed an application before this Court under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by producing original adoption deed dated 18.10.1932 and it is the further submission that the document was not produced before the trial Court as the adoption deed was misplaced. It is also submitted that since there was no issue relating to adoption, the plaintiff has no occasion to search for the adoption deed. Thus, it is urged that the additional evidence be accepted and an additional issue be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 framed relating to the adoption of plaintiff and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 13. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. It is noticed that the plaintiff has claimed to be the adopted son of Rangappa. The date of adoption is not pleaded in the plaint. Nevertheless, the defendants disputed the status of the plaintiff as the adopted son of Rangappa. This being the position, this Court is of the view that there ought to have been an issue relating to adoption. The trial Court did not give any finding relating to the plaintiff's status as adopted son of Rangappa. 14. First Appellate Court records a finding that adoption is not established by referring to Ex.P25 which is a record of right. 15. It is also relevant to notice that the plaintiff/appellant claims that adoption has taken place in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 the year 1932 i.e., before the enactment of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 16. Assuming that adoption is not established, then again the question is "Whether the plaintiff has acquired ownership over the items No.2 and 5 properties on the basis of sale deed in the name of plaintiff". 17. The trial Court and the Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that though there is a sale deed in the name of plaintiff in respect of items No.2 and 5 properties, the properties are not the exclusive properties of the plaintiff as the plaintiff himself has made a claim that he purchased the properties with the income from items No.3 and 4 of the suit schedule and accordingly, dismissed the suit. 18. It is also noticed that objection is not filed to the application seeking production of additional document. Since the plaintiff made a claim that he is the adopted son of Rangappa, even though there was no specific issue - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 framed, the plaintiff ought to have produced the original adoption deed before the trial Court and should have made an application for framing the specific issue. However, that is not done. 19. The application is filed seeking production of additional document on the premise that the document was traced while cleaning the house. Since the issue involved in this case is relating to the status of the plaintiff as the adopted son of Rangappa and the issue will have a bearing on the devolution of properties of Rangappa, this Court is of the view that the application seeking production of document has to be allowed and the parties should be given an opportunity to contest the matter relating to the alleged adoption. 20. It is also noticed that the pleading warranted the trial Court to frame an issue relating to adoption and that issue has not been framed. Though the Court finds that the plaintiff is also not diligent in moving the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 application for framing an issue relating to adoption, the issue is required to be framed in the interest of justice to consider the case on merits relating to the plea of adoption. 21. It is noticed that the suit is filed in the year 1995 and more than 30 years have elapsed. Ideally, this Court would have remanded the matter to the trial Court to frame the issue and to permit the parties to lead evidence on the additional issue. 22. Though this Court heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants on 12.09.2025 and the matter was ordered to be listed today i.e. on 15.09.2025 awaiting appearance of learned counsel for respondents. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of respondents. 23. Considering the fact that the appeal is 30 years old, the matter is remanded to First Appellate Court to frame an issue relating to adoption. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 24. Hence, the following issue is framed for the consideration of First Appellate Court: "Whether the plaintiff proves that his grandfather - Rangappa S/o Ramanna adopted the plaintiff on 18.10.1932 and proves the alleged adoption deed dated 18.10.1932?" 25. The parties shall be permitted to produce evidence in support of their claim. First Appellate Court shall consider the evidence on record and thereafter has to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 26. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All contentions of the parties relating to adoption are kept open. Hence the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. ii) Judgment and decree dated 24.07.2013 passed in RA.No.05/2005 pending on the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36488 RSA No. 1568 of 2013 file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Holalkere, are hereby set aside. iii) The appeal is remitted to First Appellate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after recording the evidence on the additional issue framed by this Court. iv) The application for production of additional document is allowed, subject to all just exceptions other than delay. v) It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any findings on the proof of the alleged adoption deed. The contention relating to proof of adoption is kept open, to be decided by the Appellate Court. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12