Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 605 (AP)

Nagireddi Lakshmi v. Nagireddi Nagaraju

2004-06-25

V.ESWARAIAH

body2004
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are the legal representatives of plaintiff who filed the suit on O. S. No. 41/88 on the file of Subordinate judge, Chodavaram. The Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff Nagireddy Govinda @ govinda Rao filed the said suit for partition of Plaint A, B and C schedule properties into four equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot three such shares to the plaintiff and for possession of the same after evicting the defendants, and their men there from and for future profits. The suit was decreed preliminarily on 25. 9. 1991 by the Trial Court for partition of Plaint a , b and c schedule properties except Items 1 and 3 of lot I of Plaint a schedule, into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and for possession of the same to the plaintiff after evicting the defendants and their men. The future profits shall be determined on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) AGAINST the judgment of the Trial court, Defendants 1 and 2 filed appeal in a. S. No. 8/1992 on the file of District Judge, visakhapatnam. The learned District Judge by its judgment and decree dated 26. 8. 1997 allowed the appeal and the decree and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed this second appeal. During the pendency of A. S. No. 8/92, the sole plaintiff, i. e. , the Respondent No. 1 therein died. The respondents 2 and 3 therein were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 4 to 9. Thus, the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff filed this second appeal. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. ( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the first respondent and her husband namely mr. Nagireddi Ramulu had no issues. So, they have adopted the plaintiff by taking from his parents after observing all the formalities according to Hindu Law and also executed an adoption deed dated 15. 11. ( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the first respondent and her husband namely mr. Nagireddi Ramulu had no issues. So, they have adopted the plaintiff by taking from his parents after observing all the formalities according to Hindu Law and also executed an adoption deed dated 15. 11. 1955, Ex. A-1, which was also registered. From the date of said adoption, the plaintiff continued to live with the 1st defendant and her husband Ramulu. About 25 years back, the said Ramulu died while living jointly with the plaintiff and the first defendant. After the death of ramulu, the plaintiff and the first defendant started enjoying the family properties jointly. As the plaintiff was minor and the first defendant being a lady by the time of death of Ramulu, the plaint schedule joint family properties are being managed by polisetty Subba Rao, the father of the 1st defendant. While the matter stood thus, at the instance of V. Easwararao, the husband of the sister of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant started disliking the plaintiff evading to maintain the plaintiff, and also trying to alienate the plaint schedule joint family properties to others in order to infringe the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff does not like to continue as a joint family member with the 1st defendant and has issued lawyer s notice to the 1st defendant on 1. 3. 1982, Ex. A-2 requiring her to partition the plaint schedule properties for which the 1st defendant issued a reply dated 4. 3. 1982 Ex. A-3 denying the adoption of the plaintiff and his rights in the property. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of nagireddi Ramulu. The adoption set up by the plaintiff is not true. Neither the first defendant nor her husband has adopted the plaintiff. The said adoption deed mentioned in the plaint is not true, valid, and not binding on the defendants. The plaintiff is the maternal aunt s son of the first defendant. The defendant s sister is given in marriage to plaintiffs own brother K. Venkat Rao. The alleged adoption deed is not true and valid under the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act as it is in a prohibited degree and there is no caste custom to adopt maternal aunt s son. The defendant s sister is given in marriage to plaintiffs own brother K. Venkat Rao. The alleged adoption deed is not true and valid under the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act as it is in a prohibited degree and there is no caste custom to adopt maternal aunt s son. The husband of the first defendant namely Ramulu died before hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The 1st defendant succeeded to all the properties of her husband as she is the only heir of her husband. Even since the 1st defendant has been in exclusive possession of the properties described in a Schedule Lot II and Schedule b and c properties and has been enjoying the same openly to the knowledge of the plaintiff and other villagers. Therefore, the defendant has perfected her title by adverse possession against the plaintiff in respect of her husband s properties. The plaintiff never enjoyed the properties of Nagireddi Ramulu in any capacity either jointly or separately along with the defendant. The plaintiff had no possession or title in the properties of late Ramulu at any time, his rights if any are barred by limitation. Items 1 to 3 of plaint a Schedule of Lot I admeasuring ac. 2. 50 cents of dry land in Darlapudi village are separate and self acquired properties of the first defendant. The first defendant got Items 1 to 3 of a Schedule of Lot I under gift settlement deed dated 6. 6. 1956, Ex. B-1 from the owner Smt. Nagireddi Sanyasamma after the death of the first defendant s husband. The 1st defendant was enjoying all the three items and conveyed the same to Smt. Poliseetty kannayamma, the 2nd defendant herein, who is the mother of the 1st defendant under gift settlement deed dated 16. 3. 1982, ex. B-3. Thus the said three items have been enjoyed by the 2nd defendant alone as exclusive owner. Therefore, the said properties are not liable for partition. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff never paid any land revenue either in respect of the land or in respect of b schedule house, and the plaintiff never lived in b schedule house along with the defendant in any capacity and defendant alone is the owner of b schedule house. c schedule is vacant land. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff never paid any land revenue either in respect of the land or in respect of b schedule house, and the plaintiff never lived in b schedule house along with the defendant in any capacity and defendant alone is the owner of b schedule house. c schedule is vacant land. The defendant is legally entitled to half of the husband s property as per the provisions of Hindu Married Women s Right to property Act. Even if late Ramulu had a son and in that share of her husband, the wife is also entitled to half share along with the son in the property of the deceased ramulu. Therefore, even if adoption of the plaintiff by late Ramulu is found to be true, the plaintiffs share in the joint family property will be 1/4th and remaining 3/4th share devolves on the 1st defendant. ( 7 ) THE second defendant also filed written statement stating that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of late Ramulu and his wife, 1st defendant. Items 1 to 3 of Lot I of a schedule property situated in Darlapudi are the self acquired property of the 1st defendant got under the registered gift settlement deed Ex. B-1 dated 6. 6. 1956 and she in turn gifted to the 2nd defendant by virtue of another gift settlement deed dated 16. 3. 1982 Ex. B-3 with absolute rights, and the second defendant is in possession of the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to question the validity of the said gift settlement deed Ex. B-3. ( 8 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the alleged adoption of plaintiff to late Nagireddi Ramulu is true and valid? (2) Whether the adoption deed dated 15. 11. 1955 is true, valid and binding on the defendants? (3) Whether the plaintiff was ever treated as the adopted son of late Ramulu and the defendant? (4) Whether the plaintiff had title to and possession in the Plaint A, B and C schedule properties at any time in any capacity within 12 years before this suit? (5) Whether the suit is in time ? (6) Whether the suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of plaintiffs status as adopted son? (4) Whether the plaintiff had title to and possession in the Plaint A, B and C schedule properties at any time in any capacity within 12 years before this suit? (5) Whether the suit is in time ? (6) Whether the suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of plaintiffs status as adopted son? (7) Whether the defendant had perfected her title to the properties of her husband late Ramulu by adverse possession also and whether she had succeeded to all the properties of her husband under the Hindu Married women s Right to Property Act, 1938? (8) Whether Items 1 to 3 of Lot I of A schedule are the self acquired and separate properties of defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any share in them? (9) Whether the gift settlement deed dated 6. 6. 1956 and 16. 3. 1982 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? (10) Whether the donee Smt. Polisetti kannayamma is a necessary party in this suit? (11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition of Plaint A, B and C schedule properties, if so, what is the share to which plaintiff is entitled to? (12) To what relief? ( 9 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1. The Purohit who performed the ceremony of adoption was examined as PW-2 and one of the residents of Darlapudi who purchased an extent of Ac. 1-03 cents from the first defendant under Ex. A-7 was examined as pw-3. Another resident of Darlapudi who was present at the time of ceremony of adoption and one of the attesting witnesses to the adoption deed was examined as pw-4. Exs. A-1 to A-71 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The Defendants 1 and 2 were examined as DWs. 1 and 2 respectively. The first defendant s father s brother was examined as DW-3 and one mr. P. Nukaraju who is said to have been cultivating the lands of the 1st defendant was examined as DW-4. The neighbour of the lands was examined as DW-5. Exs. B-1 to B-3 were also marked. The Trial Court held the Issues 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that satisfactory. evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the adoption and adoption deed Ex. The neighbour of the lands was examined as DW-5. Exs. B-1 to B-3 were also marked. The Trial Court held the Issues 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that satisfactory. evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the adoption and adoption deed Ex. A-1 is true and valid document, and it cannot be said that the adoption deed was invented for the purpose of the suit. It is further held that the plaintiff was treated as adopted son of late Ramulu and the first defendant, and accordingly, the Issues 1 to 3 were held in favour of the plaintiff. Insofar as Issue No. 7 is concerned, in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 3 that the plaintiff is the adopted son of late Ramulu and the first defendant, the question of claiming adverse possession and also the question of getting absolute rights over the properties of late ramulu under the provisions of Hindu married Women s Right to Property Act, 1938 do not arise, and accordingly the Issue no. 7 is answered against the 1st defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Insofar as issue Nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, the Trial court held that the properties of Item No. 2 of Lot I of a schedule should be treated as joint family property. But insofar as the. property covered under Ex. B-1 i. e. , Item nos. l and 3 of Lot I of a schedule is separate and self acquired property of the 1st defendant which was settled in favour of the 2nd defendant under Ex. B-3. Therefore, those two items have been excluded from the joint family property. Items 1 and 3 of lot I of plaint A schedule property are self acquired properties of the 1st defendant and she is entitled to settle the same in favour of 2nd defendant, and the issue is held against plaintiff holding Items 1 and 3 of Lot I of Plaint a Schedule property are self acquired properties of first defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share. Insofar as Issue No. 9 is concerned, the Trial Court held that the gift settlement deed dated 6. 6. 1956 and 16. 3. 1982 are true and valid and binding on the 1st t defendant. Insofar as Issue No. 9 is concerned, the Trial Court held that the gift settlement deed dated 6. 6. 1956 and 16. 3. 1982 are true and valid and binding on the 1st t defendant. Insofar as Issue No. 10 is concerned, she is already added as the 2nd defendant, and there is no need to give any finding. Issue nos. 4, 5 and 6 are also held in favour of the plaintiff. ( 10 ) ON issue No. 11, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for partition of a , b and c schedule properties except Items No. 1 and 3 of Lot I of a schedule into two equal shares, and allotment of one such share and future profits. Accordingly, the suit was preliminarily decreed with costs for partition of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties except items 1 and 3 of Lot I of a Schedule into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. ( 11 ) THE lower appellate Court considered the following points : (1) Whether the alleged adoption pleaded by late Govinda Rao is true, valid and binding on the first appellant? If so, is he entitled to the half share in all the plaint schedule properties and separate possession of the same ? (2) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the lower Court is sustainable in law ? (3) To what relief ? ( 12 ) THE lower Appellate Court held that the version of the plaintiff that he was duly taken in adoption is improbable. There is no acceptable record to show that the plaintiff was adopted son of late Ramulu. It is observed by the lower Appellate Court that according to PW-2 Purohit, the ceremony which is said to have been taken place from 12. 15 p. m. , to 3 p. m. , was not auspicious and cannot be believed. The 1 st defendant was a minor and she was not competent to take in adoption. The 1st defendant was aged about 10 or 12 years and did not attain puberty and therefore, it cannot be said that late Ramulu has no chance of begetting children. Therefore, it is highly improbable that late Ramulu had no chance of begetting children even before his wife attaining puberty and especially, when she was aged about 12 years. The 1st defendant was aged about 10 or 12 years and did not attain puberty and therefore, it cannot be said that late Ramulu has no chance of begetting children. Therefore, it is highly improbable that late Ramulu had no chance of begetting children even before his wife attaining puberty and especially, when she was aged about 12 years. There is no satisfactory evidence to the effect that late Ramulu had suffered with incurable disease, and had no chance of begetting children. Therefore, it is highly improbable to believe that late Ramulu voluntarily intended to take PW-1 in adoption. PW-1 s natural brother married to the sister of 1st defendant, and the adoption is within the prohibited degree of relationship. It is also observed by the lower appellate Court that there is no evidence to show that PW-1 was brought up by the first defendant in her house treating him as adopted son of late Ramulu. The plaintiff himself admitted that the 1st defendant and her father were managing the properties of late Ramulu and they were in possession of the said land. The school records also show that the father s name of the plaintiff is not described as late Ramulu, but it was described as S/o Tatabbai. If really, PW-1 was taken in adoption, the name of adopted father should have been incorporated in the school records as father of the plaintiff. The description in Ex. A-7 registered sale deed describing the plaintiff as the son of late Ramulu is not binding on the 1st defendant. The said Ex. A-7 document was said to have been executed by the 1st defendant when she was in minority. Therefore, the first defendant being a minor cannot act as a guardian of another minor (plaintiff), and execute sale deed Ex. A-7. Therefore, no credence can be given to Ex. A-7. There are no other grounds to believe the version of the plaintiff. It is futher stated that the mother of late Ramulu would not have settled the properties in favour of the 1st defendant if there was any adoption of the plaintiff. A-7. Therefore, no credence can be given to Ex. A-7. There are no other grounds to believe the version of the plaintiff. It is futher stated that the mother of late Ramulu would not have settled the properties in favour of the 1st defendant if there was any adoption of the plaintiff. In view of the above circumstances, the lower appellate Court held that it is not safe to believe and rely on the solitary statement of PW-1 and the opinion of the lower Court is incorrect and the plea of the plaintiff that he was adopted son of late Ramulu cannot be accepted. The alleged adoption deed is not true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the legal representatives of the plaintiff were not entitled for any share in any of the plaint schedule property. ( 13 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment of the lower Appellate Court in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the Legal Representatives of the plaintiff filed this second appeal. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant persistently contended that the lower Appellate Court grossly erred in observing that the registered adoption deed by itself was not suffice to prove that the adoption took place in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community. The lower Appellate Court also committed an error in holding that the 1st defendant herself was a minor and hence, she was not competent to take adoption. The husband of the 1st defendant late Ramulu had taken adoption of late Govinda Rao (plaintiff), but not the 1st defendant. The lower Appellate Court further erred in holding that it was highly improbable to say that late Ramulu had no chance of begetting children even before his wife attaining puberty especially when she was aged 12 years. The lower Appellate Court also erred in holding that there is no satisfactory evidence to the effect that ramulu had incurable disease and no chance of begetting children. The Appellate Court committed grave errors in holding that the contention of the plaintiff that he was adopted by late Ramulu was improbable, and also further held that there is no acceptable record to show that PW-1 was adopted son of late Ramulu. The Appellate Court committed grave errors in holding that the contention of the plaintiff that he was adopted by late Ramulu was improbable, and also further held that there is no acceptable record to show that PW-1 was adopted son of late Ramulu. The Appellate court further committed a mistake in observing that if really late Ramulu died leaving adopted son, the mother of Ramulu should not have gifted her self acquired property in favour of her widowed daughter-in-law leaving her grand son, i. e. , the plaintiff. ( 15 ) THE substantive question of law that has been raised by the plaintiff is that whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in discarding Ex. A-1 dated 15. 11. 1955 adoption deed executed by late Ramulu in the presence of several witnesses including pw-4 after performing ceremony by Purohit, pw-2. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY, Ex. A-1 dated 15. 11. 1955 was made and executed before Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 came into force with effect from 21. 12. 1956, the date on which it received the assent of the President. Therefore, the provisions of hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) have no application to the adoptions made prior to the said Act came into force. No doubt, under the present Act, 1956, there is a legal presumption under Section 16 of the Act with regard to the validity of the registered documents relating to adoption. Under section 16 of the Act, whenever, any adoption deed is registered and produced before the Court purporting to be regarded as adoption made and signed by the person giving and the person taking child in adoption. The Court shall presume that the adoption has been in compliance of the provisions of the Act unless and until, it is disproved. Therefore, the general presumption is in favour of the adopted son to treat the adoption deed as a genuine document unless contrary is proved. Under section 30 of the Act, 1956, the validity of the adoptions made before commencement of the Act shall be determined as if the act had not been passed. Therefore, the provisions of the Act, 78 of 1956 has no application to the adoptions made prior, to the date of the commencement of the said act. Under section 30 of the Act, 1956, the validity of the adoptions made before commencement of the Act shall be determined as if the act had not been passed. Therefore, the provisions of the Act, 78 of 1956 has no application to the adoptions made prior, to the date of the commencement of the said act. No doubt, under Act, 1956, a male hindu cannot adopt a son or daughter in adoption without the consent of his wife. If a female Hindu is a minor, she is not entitled to adopt. But, admittedly, the provisions of the said Act, 1956 has no application to the adoptions made prior to 1956. Under old law a person though under the age of 18 years, if he attains the age of discretion, he is entitled to adopt. But under the present act, any person under the age of 18 years cannot adopt. There is also any legal prohibition for a married men to adopt a boy without the consent of his wife. But that prohibition is only there under the present law and the present law requires the consent of the wife. Under the old law, a married women or a widow can never adopt during the life time of the husband or after his death, as the case may be, except when authority given to her by the husband or consent of suppindars, and it would be an adoption by husband. Under the old law, the boy should be of same caste as that of the adoptive father, and should be so related that a marriage between the adoptive father and the natural mother of the boy in her maiden state would be illegal. The natural father is entitled to give a boy in adoption without the consent of the mother. Dattahomam is necessary for adoption among dwijas. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, to examine the validity and legality of the adoption deed, it is required to be noticed that under the old law, the husband is entitled to adopt the boy even without the consent of his wife, and the consent of the wife is not at all necessary, and therefore, the minority of the first defendant has no consequence in holding that the adoption of the plaintiff by husband of the first defendant is not valid. ( 18 ) NOW the controversial question that arise for consideration as to whether the adoption of the plaintiff by late Ramulu, husband of the first plaintiff was legal and binding on the first defendant and whether any evidence available on record goes to show that there were circumstances warranting to adopt the plaintiff by late, ramulu. ( 19 ) PW-1 stated that he is adopted son of late Ramulu and when he was 1 1/2 year old, he was adopted by late Ramulu after performing the ceremony and an adoption deed was also executed on 15. 11. 1955 under ex. A-1, extract of the registered deed. During his minority, the 1st defendant and her father Polisetti Subba Rao used to look after the properties. He was admitted in the school by his maternal uncle Polisetti narayana Rao, who is brother of the 1st defendant. He was Ex. village Munsif of darlapudi. He studied in the elementary school at Darlapudi village. Polisetti narayana Rao, brother of first defendant admitted him in elementary school when he was minor. Ex. A-7 sale deed was executed on behalf of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant. The original of Ex. A-1 was attested by four persons who are alive and the rest of them died. The scribe of the adoption deed was also died. Iruku Someswara Sarma pw-2 is a purohit. The plaintiffs adoptive father Ramulu was village munsif till his death. Prior to Ex. A-7 dated 6. 6. 1956, his adoptive father Ramulu died. He was told that he was 11/2 years old at the time of adoption. PW-2 and others informed him about the existence of the adoption deed. His natural father died. He has admitted that K. Venkat Rao, his natural brother married the own sister of adoptive mother. The father of the defendant is his maternal uncle. The adoption deed is a genuine. ( 20 ) PW-2 the Purohit, aged 76 years, who is said to have performed the ceremony stated that he has been doing porohityam when he was 16 years old onwards, and he know the plaintiff and the defendant and late Ramulu, and also natural parents of pw-1. All of them belong to Darlapudi. The defendant and her husband Ramulu were living in the house of Polisetty Subba Raju who is father-in-law of late Ramulu and father of the first defendant. All of them belong to Darlapudi. The defendant and her husband Ramulu were living in the house of Polisetty Subba Raju who is father-in-law of late Ramulu and father of the first defendant. The adoption of the plaintiff took place when the plaintiff was two years in the house of Polisetty subba Raju. He is the purohit for adoption ceremony. Late Ramulu requested the natural parents of the plaintiff to give in adoption for which the natural parents have agreed to give the plaintiff who is their second son in adoption to Ramulu. All the elders including PW-4 were present at the time of adoption. At the first instance vigneswara Pooja was performed through adopted father. The natural parents of PW-1 handed over the plaintiff to Ramulu and the 1st defendant by saying that he gave adoption as Ramulu has no children. He performed function and elders were also given akshintalu who blessed the child by sprinkling the same on the child. There are drums beaten at the time of adoption ceremony. There was also Mangala vayidyam. The function started at about 12. 15 p. m, and completed by 3 p. m. Adoption deed was also written in their presence on the same day. PW-4 also attested the adoption deed as a witness along with six others including PW-2. The natural father of the plaintiff K. Maridayya also attested the adoption deed. By the date of adoption, late Ramulu the husband of the first defendant was aged about 25 years. The first defendant was aged about 10 years. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the same day of adoption, the original of ex. A-1 was written. It is stated that late Ramulu was a drunkard and therefore, he has lost the hope of his survival. He had intention to adopt PW-1 at that time. In the absence of the adoption, the village munsif post will go to agnates. He stated that the adoption was taken place and the adoption deed is a genuine. The scribe of the adoption deed is village karanam of the said village. Ex. A-7 was attested by V. Chitti kamaraju. ( 21 ) PW-3 is resident of Darlapudi and stated that he had purchased Ac. 1-30 cents from first defendant under Ex. A-7 registered sale deed. Ramulu was no more at the time of execution of Ex. A-7. The scribe of the adoption deed is village karanam of the said village. Ex. A-7 was attested by V. Chitti kamaraju. ( 21 ) PW-3 is resident of Darlapudi and stated that he had purchased Ac. 1-30 cents from first defendant under Ex. A-7 registered sale deed. Ramulu was no more at the time of execution of Ex. A-7. He do not know whether the 1st defendant was aged 12 years at the time of executing Ex. A-7. The attestors of Ex. A-7 K. Venkat Ramanayya and V. Chitti Kamaraju passed away. ( 22 ) PW-4 is one of the attesting witnesses of Ex. A-1 adoption deed stated that he was present at the time of adoption. Adoption ceremony took place at the house of Polisetti Subba Raju the father of the 1st defendant. The adoption ceremony was taken place at about 12 noon on that day. In the presence of invitees, the 1st defendant and her husband sat on peetas, and opposite to them, natural parents of pw-1 were also seated. PW-2 was present there officiating the function. The natural parents of PW-1 gave PW-1 in adoption to late Ramulu and his wife, the first defendant. PW-2 was chanting mantras. There were mangala Vayidyams at the time of function. The function was completed at about 2. 30 or 3 p. m. A deed was also written evidencing the adoption. It was scribed by the Village Karanam of the village. He had attested the document as a witness. The original of Ex. A-1 was also attested by several others namely Kusumanchi venkatrao, Pinapolu Nookaraju andpolisetty butchayya etc. PW-2 also attested the adoption deed. Adoption deed was also registered 8 days thereafter. He was also present at the time of registration. Since the date of adoption, the plaintiff was under the custody of the 1st defendant till filing of the suit. From last years, i. e. , after filing of the suit, he is residing with his natural parents, as there was dispute between the first defendant and PW-1. While he was in the house of the 1st defendant, the father of the 1st defendant cultivated the lands. In the cross-examination, he stated that late Ramulu was about 25 years to 30 years at the time of adoption. While he was in the house of the 1st defendant, the father of the 1st defendant cultivated the lands. In the cross-examination, he stated that late Ramulu was about 25 years to 30 years at the time of adoption. The 1st defendant was aged 12 or 13 years at the time of adoption, and he does not know whether she joined her husband by that time. By the time of adoption, late Ramulu was Village Munsif of Darlapudi and he was in the habit of taking drinks. It is incorrect to state that the signature of adoptive father Rarnulu was obtained on the adoption deed while he was in the state of drunkenness. The late Ramulu has adopted the plaintiff in the presence of the elders and the adoption deed is not a concocted one. ( 23 ) THE first defendant was examined as DW-1 and stated that she was eight years old when she married late Ramulu. By the date of his death, she was eleven years old. Her husband Ramulu died on 6. 5. 1956. PW-1 never resided in the house as adopted son. The suggestions put forth by the plaintiff by way of giving and taking adoption, performing the adoption ceremony and registering adoption deed Ex. A-1 is denied. The suggestion that his brother polsetty Narayana Rao admitted the plaintiff in elementary school was denied. ( 24 ) DW-2 is the second defendant and the mother of the first defendant. She stated that she is mainly added as a party with regard to the settlement deed obtained from the first defendant. In turn it was settled in favour of second defendant for which there is no dispute as held by the Trial Court that the properties covered under settlement deed was self acquired property of the 1st defendant and she was entitled to settle the same in favour of second defendant. ( 25 ) DW-3 stated that the 1st defendant is daughter of his elder brother. He stated that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of the 1st defendant. In the cross-examination, he stated that when Ramulu died, he was 12 years old. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff was taken in adoption by 1st defendant and her husband late Ramulu after performing ceremonies in the house of his brother. ( 26 ) DW-4 stated that he is cultivating the lands of 1st defendant. In the cross-examination, he stated that when Ramulu died, he was 12 years old. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff was taken in adoption by 1st defendant and her husband late Ramulu after performing ceremonies in the house of his brother. ( 26 ) DW-4 stated that he is cultivating the lands of 1st defendant. But there is no proof to show that he is cultivating the lands. He knows about the suit filed by the plaintiff. He stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff was given in adoption to the Defendant No. 1 and her husband in 1955. ( 27 ) DW-5 also stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff was adopted by the 1st defendant and her husband in 1955. Ex. A-1 adoption deed written in telugu on 15. 11. 1955 stating that the plaintiff who is the second son of the natural father and resident of Darlapudi village was given in adoption to late Ramulu as he was not having any issues and he was suffering from ill, and also there is no chance of begetting any issues. He was in a fear when he was not feeling well for not having any issues to continue his family prodigy, and for his life satisfaction, he has requested for a putrabiksha for which the natural parents have agreed and as per the agreement of both the parties, in the presence of friends, relatives and purohit, adoption was taken place as per the rituals of Hindu dharma. Both the husband and wife of natural parents and the adopted parents were sat in opposite directions and the plaintiff was given in adoption by the natural parents of late Ramulu and his wife the 1st defendant, for which the natural parents have agreed, and the plaintiff was taken in adoption as per their caste customs after performing necessary function. The adopted son was named as Govindayya, the plaintiff. The extract of Ex. A-1 shows that it was registered after 8 days as stated by PW-4, i. e. , on 23. 11. 1955. ( 28 ) THE name of the natural father of the plaintiff as is evident from Ex. A-1 and the deposition of PW-4 is K. Maridaiah. But the school record shows that the name of the plaintiffs father as Tatabbai. Tatabbai is neither the natural father nor the adoptive father of the plaintiff. 11. 1955. ( 28 ) THE name of the natural father of the plaintiff as is evident from Ex. A-1 and the deposition of PW-4 is K. Maridaiah. But the school record shows that the name of the plaintiffs father as Tatabbai. Tatabbai is neither the natural father nor the adoptive father of the plaintiff. As per the evidence available on record, the plaintiff was admitted in the school by the brother of the 1st defendant namely Polisetty Narayana Rao. Therefore, whatever name was furnished by the said Polisetty Narayana Rao, it was recorded in the school records. It cannot be said that the plaintiff furnished the said name in the school record before admitting in the first class. Whatever name was entered in the first class, the same name obviously continued till 5th class. The plaintiff also filed Ex. A-6. As per Ex. A-6, the father s name of the plaintiff was written as N. Ramulu (deceased ). As per Ex. A-7, which is settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant on behalf of the plaintiff also, wherein, it has been described that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the 1st defendant. However, her signature is not there at the bottom of every page. But, it was a registered deed wherein thumb impression of the 1st defendant was affixed on the said deed. The legality and validity of the said document was not at all questioned and the said property was sold in favour of PW-3 and PW-3 was alone enjoying the said property pursuant to the purchase of the same under Ex. A-7 as absolute owner. ( 29 ) IN view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff was given in adoption by his natural parents late Ramulu, husband of the 1st defendant and under the old Hindu Law, prior to Hindu Adoption and Maintenance act, 1956 came into force, there was no such requirement that the consent of the wife is necessary and there was no any prohibition to adopt the plaintiff in view of the aforesaid relationship. The consent of the wife is only required under the present act and the present Act, 1956 has no application as the said adoption took place prior to the present Act came into force. The consent of the wife is only required under the present act and the present Act, 1956 has no application as the said adoption took place prior to the present Act came into force. From the evidence available on record as discussed above, it is clear that late Ramulu was not keeping good health and he was suffering from bad health and he was not having any hopes of begetting his own natural born son, and therefore, to fulfill his desire and for continuation of his family survival, he wanted to adopt a male child, and accordingly requested the natural parents of the plaintiff who have accepted for the same and after performing the ceremony as per the rituals of Hindu Law, the adoption took place, and the same was reduced into writing under Ex. A-1, and the adoption ceremony was performed by PW-2 and PW-2 also attested the adoption deed. PW-4 also was present at the time of adoption, and attested Ex. A-1, and was also present when the said adoption deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar after eight days. The adoption took place on 15. 11. 1955. On the same day, Ex. A-1 was executed, and it was registered after 8 days, i. e. on 23. 11. 1955. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has failed to establish about the legality and validity of the adoption that took place before the Act came into force. There was no legal impediment in taking and giving the said adoption, and the adoption of the plaintiff is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, there are no probabilities, to disbelieve the said adoption, as held by the lower Appellate court. The lower Appellate Court contrary to the evidence available on record stated that no witness to the adoption deed was examined, and the said adoption deed cannot be believed. Merely because the mother of late Ramulu settled certain property in 1956 itself immediately after adoption when the plaintiff was just two years old in favour of the 1st defendant, it cannot be said that the adoption deed itself is not a genuine one. The self-acquired property can be settled in favour of anybody, and there is no compulsion to settle the property in favour of minor child who was just then adopted. The self-acquired property can be settled in favour of anybody, and there is no compulsion to settle the property in favour of minor child who was just then adopted. ( 30 ) VIEWING in any angle, I am of the view that the judgment of the lower Appellate court is perverse, and without any basis whatsoever and the said judgment is contrary to the oral evidence available on record and also contrary to the legal aspects. Therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside. The Trial court rightly held that the properties settled by the 1 st defendant in favour of the second defendant are self acquired properties and remaining properties are joint family properties, and the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled for equal shares and therefore, I am of the view that the judgment and decree of Trial Court is legal, and valid and accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed. ( 31 ) THE second appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.