Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 967 (TS)

YEPURI MAHESH KUMAR v. Yepuri Mangamma

2025-09-03

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.542 of 2013 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the plaintiff is the son and defendant No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.1 and late Yepuri Satyanarayana i.e. the common ancestor. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the children of Yepuri Satyanarayana, while defendant No.1 is the wife of Satyanarayana. During his life time said Yepuri Satyanarayana has purchased the suit schedule property in a dilapidated condition by selling away the ancestral old house standing in the name of his grandfather Narsaiah at Khammam. Thereafter, he got demolished the old house and reconstructed the same in the year 1986 with all amenities. At the time of construction, the plaintiff was running a Kirana shop and working as a part-time house broker and he invested his earnings in the said construction. It is his case that he got married on 07.03.1996 and that he has also performed the marriage of defendant No.2 by giving Rs.3 Lakhs, 15 tulas of gold wroth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. Subsequently, due to differences between the defendant No.2 and her husband, their relationship got severed by divorce within a period of one year. Thereafter, defendant No.2 was staying along with her parents and the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have started showing a differential attitude against the plaintiff and his family and they have kicked them out of the house and surprisingly their father Yepuri Satyanarayana also supported them. Eversince then, the plaintiff is not in talking terms with his parents and defendant No.2. Subsequently, defendant No.2 got remarried to one Surender Reddy and that the plaintiff has demanded his father Yepuri Satyanarayana several times for partition of suit schedule property but his efforts went in vain. Eversince then, the plaintiff is not in talking terms with his parents and defendant No.2. Subsequently, defendant No.2 got remarried to one Surender Reddy and that the plaintiff has demanded his father Yepuri Satyanarayana several times for partition of suit schedule property but his efforts went in vain. On 20.11.2012, he came to know that his father fell sick and thus, he visited his father and requested for partition but his father as well as defendant Nos.1 and 2 refused for the partition. But his father has informed him that his right in the suit schedule property will be reserved. During ten days prior to the death of his father, the plaintiff has served him by giving medicines and fruits and on 24.11.2012, Yepuri Satyanarayana expired and he performed the last rites of his father by incurring expenditure. Again after completion of the formalities, he requested defendants for partition of suit schedule property but they did not agreed for the same. ON 24.12.2012, he has obtained an encumbrance certificate through which he came to know that his father has executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property vide document No.3701 of 2003 dated 03.12.2003 and in fact the father of the plaintiff has no right to execute the gift deed as the suit schedule property is an ancestral property. It is further averred that Yepuri Satyanarayana was seriously ill for more than 10 years before his death and as on the date of execution of gift deed also he was not in a position to attend the registrar office and taking advantage of his unsoundness of mind, the defendants have created the said gift deed with a malafide intention to usurp the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendants have filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and they further contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1 and that in fact he is the son of Nagabhushanam and Radhamma and that said Radhamma is the sister of late Yepuri Satyanarayana. Since the parents of the plaintiff were financially poor, Yepuri Satyanarayana brought the plaintiff to his house and that Yepuri Satyanarayana got him educated and got established a Kirana Shop for him for his livelihood and hence, the plaintiff has nothing to do with the family or properties of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Since the parents of the plaintiff were financially poor, Yepuri Satyanarayana brought the plaintiff to his house and that Yepuri Satyanarayana got him educated and got established a Kirana Shop for him for his livelihood and hence, the plaintiff has nothing to do with the family or properties of Yepuri Satyanarayana. It is further their case that Yepuri Satyanarayana purchased an open plot admeasuring 90 Sq.yards vide document No.223 of 1967 on 18.07.1967 and got constructed a house i.e. the suit schedule property herein in the said plot with his own funds and that it is false to say that the said property was purchased by selling away the ancestral house. They further denied that the plaintiff has performed the marriage of defendant No.2 with his money. After maintaining him for a consideration period of time, Yepuri Satyanarayana asked the plaintiff herein to leave their house and thus, he went away and living separately and thereafter, he did not turn up but surprisingly, he filed the present suit claiming a share in the property. They further denied that Yepuri Satyanarayana was suffering from ill-health 10 years prior to his death, they contended that he was hail and healthy and he died after nine years of executing the gift deed. Their contention is that Yepuri Satyanarayana was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and thus, he has every right to gift the property to his only daughter and that no one can find fault with the same. 5. Subsequently, the plaintiff got filed re-joinder to the written statement admitting that he is the natural son of Naghabhushanam and Radhamma but contended that he was adopted by Yepuri Satyanarayana and that in his school records, Yepuri Satyanarayana is shown to be his father. He has again reiterated that he has contributed to the construction of the house i.e. suit schedule property and that it was purchased out of ancestral funds. 6. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed additional written statement stating that the plea taken by the plaintiff itself contradictory. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: “1) Whether the plaintiff is not the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana as contended by the defendants? 2) Whether the gift deed dated 13.11.2003, which was registered on 03.12.2003 is null and void and liable to be cancelled as prayed for by the plaintiff? 7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: “1) Whether the plaintiff is not the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana as contended by the defendants? 2) Whether the gift deed dated 13.11.2003, which was registered on 03.12.2003 is null and void and liable to be cancelled as prayed for by the plaintiff? 3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of the schedule property and for separate possession of 1/3 rd share in the schedule property as prayed for? 4) To what relief?” 8. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19. Defendants got examined DWs 1 and 2 but no documents were marked. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 10. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous and that the trial Court ought to have allowed his suit filed for partition. He further argued that the plaintiff has filed all the documents to prove that he is the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana and that his adoption is proved. He filed the school leaving certificate, wherein Yepuri Satyanarayana is shown to be the father of the plaintiff herein and thus contended that Yepuri Satyanarayana has given his name to the plaintiff along with his surname just because he is an adopted son. He also produced the marriage certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Yadagiri temple, wherein the plaintiff is shown to be the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana and also in the wedding card it was clearly mentioned as Y.Mahesh Kumar i.e. plaintiff as only son of defendant No.1 and her husband Yepuri Satyanarayana. He further submitted that they have filed Xerox copy of Datta Patram (adoption deed) singed by DW1 and her husband in the presence of witnesses but the trial Court has failed to consider the same, as it was a Xerox copy. He further submitted that they have filed Xerox copy of Datta Patram (adoption deed) singed by DW1 and her husband in the presence of witnesses but the trial Court has failed to consider the same, as it was a Xerox copy. He further argued that when they have served notice on DW1 to provide the original copy, though it is in the custody of DW1, she failed to produce the same, hence, the trial Court ought to have taken the Xerox copy into consideration but it is not done. He has also filed the cremation photos of Yepuri Satyanarayana eliciting that the plaintiff herein has performed his last rites and that the trial Court has over looked the entire evidence produced by him. That the trial Court also failed to take notice of the admissions made by the DWs 1 and 2 in their cross examination. He therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allow his appeal. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court has delivered a very reasoned judgment and that mere mentioning of the name as father in the school records does not confer any right on the plaintiff to claim that he is the adopted son of Yepuri Satyanarayana. The adoption itself is not proved before the trial Court and therefore, he cannot succeed with a plea of partition over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property being the self acquired property of Yepuri Satyanarayana, he has rightly gifted it to his only daughter, defendant No.2 herein. He further argued that the plaintiff is not at all concerned with the family of Yepuri Satyanarayana. That the plaintiff has admitted that he is the son of Nagabhusham and Radhamma and when the adoption itself is not proved, he cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property. He submitted that PW4 also stated that she too was brought up by defendant No.1 which shows that the family of Yepuri Satyanrayana and his wife/defendant No.1 was well settled and so they were looking after the well being of plaintiff and PW4 but contended that it does not amount to adoption. He submitted that PW4 also stated that she too was brought up by defendant No.1 which shows that the family of Yepuri Satyanrayana and his wife/defendant No.1 was well settled and so they were looking after the well being of plaintiff and PW4 but contended that it does not amount to adoption. He further argued that in the first instance when he has filed plaint itself the plaintiff could have mentioned the fact of adoption but it is only after the filing of written statement by the defendants that he has come up with a new plea of adoption, therefore, he argued that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and that his plea of adoption is totally false and he is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property, he therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff is the natural son of Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of suit schedule property? If so, to what share? 3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable in law and under the facts? 4) To what relief? 13. POINT NOS.1 AND 2: a) It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is the natural son of Naghubhushanam and Radhamma and Radhamma happens to be the sister of Yepuri Satyanarayana. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was taken into adoption by Yepuri Satyanarayana. It is contended by the plaintiff that Xerox copy of adoption deed ought to have been marked by the trial Court as the defendant No.1 is in possession of the same and has not produced it before the Court. b) The plaintiff got examined as many as four witnesses apart from him. He further relied upon Ex.A5, the VII Class common examination certificate given by the Common Examination Board of Hyderabad, wherein he is portrayed to be the son of Y.Satyanarayana. Ex.A6 is the caste certificate issued by MRO wherein he is shown to be son of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Transfer certificate of X class is filed under Ex.A7, wherein the name of the parent/guardian is mentioned as Yepuri Satyanarayana. Ex.A6 is the caste certificate issued by MRO wherein he is shown to be son of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Transfer certificate of X class is filed under Ex.A7, wherein the name of the parent/guardian is mentioned as Yepuri Satyanarayana. Ex.A8 is his employment card which also bears the father’s name of plaintiff as Y.S.Narayana. Exs.A9 and A10 are the original Lagna Patrika and wedding card, wherein the plaintiff is shown to be the only son of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Ex.A11 is the original marriage certificate issued by EO, Yadagirigutta Devasthanam, which also potrays the name of Yepuri Satyanarayana as the father of plaintiff. Ex.A12 is the original residence certificate issued by MRO which also shows the said recitals that said Mahesh Kumar is shown to be the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Ex.A13 is the receipt/invoice issued by Chowdhry Bros. Current account pass book of SBH is filed under Ex.A14, wherein he is shown to be a son of Satyanarayana. The extract of marriage certificate in the Registrar Office of Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam at Yadagirigutta shows the father’s name as Yepuri Satyanarayana and one of the witnesses is shown to be Kandikonda Nagabhushanam. The purchase certificate issued by Chowdary brothers showing that Bajaj Auto is purchased in the name Y.Mahesh Kumar son of Y.Satyanarayana and the current account passbook also shows Mahesh Kumar is the son of Y.Satyanarayana. He has also filed certain photographs with CD under Ex.A15, showing that he was participating in all the family functions and also that the final rites of Y.Satyanarayana were conducted by him. c) Admittedly, he is the son of Radhamma and Nagabhushanam. In order to prove his adoption, either he should prove the Datta Homam or any adoption deed, and most importantly the actual giving and taking in adoption through cogent evidence. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that initially in the plaint he has not mentioned about the fact of adoption but it is only when the defendants have raised the point that he is not the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana in their written statement, he came up with a rejoinder taking a plea of adoption. Under Hindu Law giving and taking are the essential ingredients of a valid adoption. Under Hindu Law giving and taking are the essential ingredients of a valid adoption. d) The plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any document in the Court to show that the suit schedule property is purchased with the sale consideration of the ancestral property. He admitted that he is the son of Radhamma and Naghabushanam and that Radhamma is the younger sister of Yepuri Satyanarayana. It is also elicited from him that he has not filed any proof to show that he aided in the reconstruction of the suit schedule property with his funds. He admitted that late Yepuri Satyanarayana lived for about nine years after the execution of gift deed in favour of defendant No.2. He denied a suggestion that he went to the defendants several times and threatened them with a demand to give money. e) In support of his case, he got examined PW2/Kandikonda Suryanarayana, who is the son of late K.Naghabushanam. It is elicited in his cross examination that the plaintiff is his own younger brother and that there is an age gap of 14 years between himself and the plaintiff and that they are six children to their natural parents. It is elicited from him that there is no document to show that the plaintiff was adopted by Yepuri Satyanarayana but again he stated that a document was reduced into writing with regard to adoption and that himself, Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1 have signed the said document and the same is with defendant No.1 and that it was written in 1985. He denied that they do not have any properties but has not filed any document to show that himself and his three brothers got partitioned their properties. He admitted that after the marriage of plaintiff, he has been staying separately from the family of defendant No.1 and that the marriage of plaintiff was performed about 20 to 25 years ago. f) PW3 is one Perumalla Vijayalaxmi wife of Perumalla Muthu Swamy. She is the younger sister of defendant No.1. She stated that defendant No.1 was issueless and adopted the plaintiff when he was 21 days old and brought the plaintiff to their house and after a lapse of three years, her sister was blessed with a female child and that the plaintiff and the female child were brought up as brother and sister. She stated that defendant No.1 was issueless and adopted the plaintiff when he was 21 days old and brought the plaintiff to their house and after a lapse of three years, her sister was blessed with a female child and that the plaintiff and the female child were brought up as brother and sister. In her cross examination, it is elicited that a document was reduced to writing regarding the alleged adoption of plaintiff by Yepuri Satyanarayana. She admitted that defendant No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.1 and again added that five years after the adoption of plaintiff, defendant No.2 was born. g) PW4 is one K.Anuradha wife of Suryanarayana. She is the niece of defendant No.1 i.e. younger sister’s daughter. It is elicited from her that defendant No.1 is the elder sister of her mother and she stated that plaintiff was adopted by defendant No.1 and her husband. She also stated that she is the wife of natural brother of the plaintiff. In her cross examination it is elicited from her that Naghabhushanam was running a hotel and they had four sons and two daughters. It is elicited from her that she was around eight years old at the time of the alleged adoption. It is further brought out in her cross examination that she was also brought up by the defendant No.1. It is elicited from her that the plaintiff has been staying away from the defendants for the last 20 years. h) PW5 is one Ramshetty Radha Bai, she happens to be the neighbor of defendant Nos.1 and 2. She stated in her chief examination that she knows the plaintiff right from his childhood as he was brought at the age of 21 days by her neighbours Yepuri Satyanarayana and Mangamma. IN her cross examination, it is elicited that no ceremony was performed at the time of alleged adoption of the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 and her husband and no document was reduced into writing regarding the adoption. IN her cross examination, it is elicited that no ceremony was performed at the time of alleged adoption of the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 and her husband and no document was reduced into writing regarding the adoption. i) DW1 is the wife of Yepuri Satyanarayana i.e. defendant No.1 herein, she reiterated her pleadings in the written statement during her chief examination and in her cross examination it is elicited that her marriage was performed when she was aged about 12 years and she stated that the plaintiff was brought to their house when he was 25 days old in 1972 and that defendant No.2 was born in 1974. She stated that they have brought the plaintiff and got him educated. She added that they were not having children and therefore, they brought the plaintiff to their house from his parents and got him educated. She admitted that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were grown together in their house. She also admitted that in the school records of the plaintiff, his father’s name is mentioned as Satyanarayana and that the plaintiff is grown as a son of Satyanarayana and that they have given an auto rickshaw to the plaintiff by taking a loan for his livelihood and performed the marriage of the plaintiff. She also admitted that in the wedding card also they were shown to be the parents of the plaintiff and after their marriage, the plaintiff and his wife lived with them for three to four years and thereafter, they left. She further added that she met with an accident at the time of plaintiff’s marriage and her husband became old and therefore, the plaintiff and his wife left them to their fate without serving them and started living separately. She denied a suggestion that the plaintiff has incurred marriage expenses of defendant No.2. She admitted that the plaintiff demanded for partition of the suit schedule property and denied the suggestion that her husband has promised the plaintiff to give a share to him. She denied a suggestion that the plaintiff is their adopted son and that he is entitled to a share in the property. She admitted that the plaintiff has performed the last rites of her husband in the capacity of her son. The photographs shown to her were admitted by her under Ex.A15 with regard to the cremation ceremony. She denied a suggestion that the plaintiff is their adopted son and that he is entitled to a share in the property. She admitted that the plaintiff has performed the last rites of her husband in the capacity of her son. The photographs shown to her were admitted by her under Ex.A15 with regard to the cremation ceremony. j) Defendant No.2 is examined as DW2. It is elicited from her that the plaintiff is three years elder to her and that they got primary education in the same school. She also admitted a photograph under Ex.A16 to have taken with the plaintiff. She also admitted the other photographs under Ex.A17 which pertains to the engagement of the plaintiff, Ex.A18 is the photograph which is taken at the reception of the plaintiff. Exs.A15 to A19 are the photographs pertaining to several ceremonies and they were admitted by DW2. She denied the suggestion that her father purchased the suit schedule property by selling away the ancestral property. She admitted that herself and plaintiff lived together as sister and brother in their house, but denied that the plaintiff has borne her marriage expenses. k) Though the plaintiff alleges that there was an adoption deed executed and that it is in the possession of defendant No.1, the said contention is nullified with the evidence of PW5. She has clearly stated that she is the neighbor and that though she stated that the plaintiff was brought up by defendant No.1 and her husband from the age of 21 days, she has clearly stated that no datta homam was performed and no adoption deed was executed. l) It is elicited from the evidence on record that the plaintiff was brought up by defendant No.1 and her husband Yepuri Satyanarayana and that they have got him educated. Admittedly, he is the son of Naghabhushanam and Radhamma. It is also brought out in the evidence that Naghabhushanam had six sons. He further got educated by staying at the house of Yepuri Satyanarayana and his wife/defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 also admitted that they performed the marriage of plaintiff by printing the cards as the parents of the plaintiff. It is elicited from the evidence of PW4 that she too was brought up by defendant No.1. He further got educated by staying at the house of Yepuri Satyanarayana and his wife/defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 also admitted that they performed the marriage of plaintiff by printing the cards as the parents of the plaintiff. It is elicited from the evidence of PW4 that she too was brought up by defendant No.1. Thus, it probabilizes the contention of respondent’s counsel that since the family of Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1 was well settled, they were looking after the well being of plaintiff and also PW4 but it does not amount to adoption. However, it is pertinent to take note of a fact that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is an adopted son of Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1, he has to show that the property is an ancestral property to claim a share. Though it is alleged by the plaintiff that it is an ancestral property, it is purchased by the sale proceeds of the ancestral property, no evidence is produced in this regard. The witnesses have stated that it was purchased by Yepuri Satyanarayana and he got constructed the house. Though the plaintiff says that he has contributed his earnings to the construction of house, no proof is filed in this regard. When it is a self acquired property of Yepuri Satyanarayana he has absolute right to give away the same to anybody he likes. The registered gift settlement deed under Ex.A1 shows that it is executed by Yepuri Satyanarayana on 13.11.2003 out of his love and affection to his daughter who is defendant No.2. Admittedly, defendant No.2 is the natural daughter of Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1 and he has given away the suit schedule property in gift. Therefore, the property is not available for partition and it is also not proved that that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property. m) The learned appellant counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Surisetti Suryanarayana and others v. Sarasa Mahalaxmamma , [ 2013 (3) ALD 639 ] , wherein it was held that in a registered sale deed executed in favour of the 1 st defendant, he was referred to be an adopted son of one Boddeti Appanna and that late Boddeti Appanna had no male issues. It was further brought out from the circumstances in the suit that the 1 st defendant has been living in adoptive family since his childhood and exclusively enjoying the properties, after the death of Boddeti Appanna. Thus, it was held that the trial court ought to have drawn presumption that 1 st defendant is adoptive son of Boddeti Appanna and adoption pleaded by him is valid. In the said case, late Boddeti Appanna had no male issues, and the 1 st defendant is none other than the eldest daughter’s son of late Boddeti Appanna and the 1 st defendant was residing in the adoptive family and he had no connection with his natural father. The said facts and circumstances differ with that in the case on hand. In the present case, the deceased Yepuri Satyanarayana had daughter and the plaintiff is his sister’s son. Further, in the present case during the life time of Yepuri Satyanarayana, he has executed the gift deed in favour of his own daughter and the plaintiff has been living separately much prior to the death of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Therefore, the said case law cannot be applied to the case on hand. n) The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co., , [2013 (2) ALD 61 (SC)] In the said case, a ceremony was performed by the adoptive father, wherein he expressed that being a bachelor he thought it fit to take the appellant in adoption, for which the biological parents of appellant were also willing to give him adoption and the process of adoption was carried out in the presence of respected persons of Panchayat and in the said ceremony goods and sweets were distributed in commemoration of function of adoption and the adoption deed was written by the then Sarpanch of village and signed by natural and adoptive parents, apart from three witnesses. In the present case, there is no such ceremony nor there was any adoption deed executed, therefore, the said case is also not applicable to the case on hand. o) Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Pathak v. Mohan Prasad , [2016 (4) ALD 45 (SC)] . In the said case, there was an adoption deed dated 29.03.1974 and it was summoned from the office of Sub-registrar. o) Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Pathak v. Mohan Prasad , [2016 (4) ALD 45 (SC)] . In the said case, there was an adoption deed dated 29.03.1974 and it was summoned from the office of Sub-registrar. The said document is a public document and was purportedly registered more than 40 years ago. In the said case, the trial Court has rejected the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed with an attempt to take a specific plea that he was the adopted son. The matter went in appeal to the High Court and the High court also refused to admit the document i.e. adoption deed. However, the Apex Court has set aside the orders of the trial Court and the High Court and the appellant was permitted to summon the said record. In the present case, there is no such adoption deed, therefore, even the said case is not applicable to the case on hand. p) The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad , [ 2023 INSC 1004 ] . In the said case, Kaliprasad was the grandson i.e. daughter’s son of Venkubayamma, while Nalini Kanth has claimed that he was adopted by Venkubayamma and thus, he claimed absolute right and title over the properties of late Venkubayamma under a registered will deed dated 03.05.1982. He has also putforth an adoption deed. The trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of Nalini Kanth but in appeal, the High Court has reversed its decision and thus, has held that the adoption is not proved and validity of the will deed was also not proved. Thereby, it was held that Kali Prasad was the natural heir of Venkubayamma. When it went to Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption, is an essential requisite under Section 11(vi) of the act of 1956. Thereby, it was held that Kali Prasad was the natural heir of Venkubayamma. When it went to Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption, is an essential requisite under Section 11(vi) of the act of 1956. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that there are no pictures of the actual ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption and that in Exs.A2 and A3, the purohit was seen standing or sitting behind the others and the same could not be taken to be during the ceremony of giving and taking, thus it was held that when the actual act of giving and taking in adoption is not elicited, the adoption was held to be not proved. Despite the registration of Ex.A9 the adoption deed, the Apex Court held that the very adoption, itself, is not believable, given the multitude of suspicious circumstances surrounding it and thereby, upheld the decision of the High Court. q) The evidence on record does not probabilise the contention of the plaintiff that he is the adopted son of Yepuri Satyanarayana. Though the interested witnesses like himself, his brother and brother’s wife have supported his case, the neighbor of the plaintiff has clearly stated that there was no datta homam and adoption deed as contended by the plaintiff, which nullifies his case. Thus, the adoption itself is not proved and even otherwise the suit schedule property is not the ancestral property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the property. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.3: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.542 of 2013 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.