[ 3216 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN SECOND APPEAL Nos. 862 OF 2006 & 43 OF 2009 S.A No. 862 OF 2006 Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree daled 28-04-2006, made in A.S No. 66 of 2004, on the frle of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum V Additional District & Sessions Judge IVedak at Sangareddy, Preferred against the Judgment and Decree daled 25-06-2004 Passed in O.S No 123 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy. Between: L. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late Rangareddy, Agriculture, R/o. Cheriyal Village, SAngareddy Mandal, Medak District. ...APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AND 1. Hanmanth Reddy, S/o. Late Veera Reddy, Advocate, C/o. Bar Association, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2. Veerajun Reddy, S/o. Late fiIalla Reddy, Court Employee, Rl/o, Dist Judge Buildings, SAnga Reddy, Ivledak District. 3. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Service, Rt/o. Qtr,No.611, BHEL Township Type lll, Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy, 4. Narasimha Reddy, S/o- Shiva Reddy, Agriculture, R/o. cheriyal Village, Sanga Reddy Medak District. 5. Purushotham Reddy, S/o, Shiva Reddy, Business RJo. C/o. Narashima Reddy Cheriyal Village, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, 6. Narotham Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, AGriculturist, R/o. etr.No. 975 BHEL Township Type ll, Ramachandrapuiam Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 7. Rukkamma,, Wo- Late Shiva Reddy, Agriculture, R/o. Cheriyal Village, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 8. P. Aruna, Wo. Mahipal Reddy, Household, R/o. 4388 BHEL MIG phase ll, R.C.Puram, Medak District. 9. L. ltrlaniamrna, W/o. Late \4arl;r Reddy, household, R/o.C/o. Veerajun Reddy. (Court Employee) District Judqe court Building Sanga Reddy 10. L. SAtyamnra W/o. ] ate Veera Reddy, household, Rio.C/o. Veerajun Reddy, (Court Employee) District Judqe court Building Sanga Reddy 11. Vishala, D/o. Ivlallareddy, hoLrsehold, R/o.C/o. Veerajun Reddy, (Cou( Employee) District Judge court Building Sanga Reddy 12.Yiplava, W/o. Gavardhan Reddy, household, RJo.C/o. Veerajun Reddy, (Court Employee) District Judge cor-rrt Building Sanga Reddy 13.K. Prameela, W/o. Laxma Reddy, Household, Korpol \/illage, Putka tr,4andal, t\,4edak District. 14. Narender Reddy, S/o. Balamarri, R:/o. Kolkoor village, :iAdhashivapet, Medak District. 15.Ra.jender Reddy, S/o. Balamani @ Susheela, Court Clerk, R/o. Kolkoor Village, Sadhashivpet, Medak District. 16. Vrlitha, D/o. Balamani, household, r/o. Kolkoor Village, Sadhashivpet, Ir/edak Diskict. 17. Jagga Reddy, S/o. N4alla Redrly, Post master, R/o. Kott.oor village, Sadhashivapet, lr/edak Distr ct. 18. Kamalamma, W/o. Buchi Reddy, Housewife, R/o. Qtr.No. 975, BHEL, Township Type ll, R.C.Puram Sanga Reddy, '19. Pushpamma, D/o. Late Bucchi Reddy, Wo. Vittal Reddy, househotd, R/o. Kanapur Vrllage, Near Gan I p':1. Narsingi Mandal, 20.Punyamma, D/o. Late Bucchi Reddy, W/o. Venkat Redrly, R/o 11-186/1, Opp to Shivalayam Fathenagar Ba;tnagar IVlandal, 21. Suvarna, D/o. Late Bucchi Reddy, W/o. Raj Reddy, hou;ewife, R/o. Plot No. .174, Abyudhayanagar Behind Vishnu Theatre, Vanasthalipuram, ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPON DE NTS/DEFEN DANTS SAMP. NO: 2324 OF 2007 in S.A. No. 862 OF 2006 Petition under order 39 rule 1 and 2 R/W 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased restrain the Respondent No.1 from altenating tlte land admesauring 209 acres in sy.No.265/E, 2661E,421,510 to 513, 105, 132, 133, 364, 19, 27 lo 34,36 to 43, 56 71,72,90, 95 to 99, 117,137,140, 141,144, 327,33O to 332,356,368 to 374, 494, 563, 639 to 643 696, 648,601, 705, 736,742, situated at cheriyal village, Sanga Reddy, ft4edak District- SAMP. NO: 2537 OF 2014 in s.A. No. 862 oF 2006 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment and decree in O.S No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Sanga Reddy Medak District Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. J. C. FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5,10: Sri P- VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 9 &12: Sri K. RAJI REDOY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.14 to 17: Sri B. JAGANADHA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 6: Sri MEHERCHAND NORI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 4,7,8,11,13,18,19,20 &21: NONE APPEARED. SECOND APPEAL NO:43 OF 2009 Appeal under section 100 of C-P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 28-04-2006, made in A.S No. 65 of 2004, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum V Additional District & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy, Preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 25-06-2004 Passed in O.S No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy. Between 1. Jagga Reddy, S/o tr/alla Reddy, Agriculture and Post lvlaster R/o Kolkoor Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District 2. Narender Reddy, S/o Balamani, W/o Jagga Reddy Agriculture R/o Kolkoor Village, Sadasivpet t\4andal, Medak District 3. Rajender Reddy, S/o Balamani @ Susheela, Wo Jagga Reddy Court Clerk Rl/o Kolkoor Village, Sadasivpet t\,4andal, Medak District 4. Vijitha, D/o Balamani @ Susheela Wo Jagga Reddy Household R/o Kolkoor Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak Diskict C/ trilanik Reddy, Teacher, Near Narayan Khed, Medak Dt ...APPELLANTS/ APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT Nos. 22,1 9,20 & 21. AND '1. Hanumanth Reddy, s/o Veera Reddy. Advocate Rt/o C/o Baar Assoication, Sangareddy, Medak Dist 2. Veerajun Reddy, s/o malla Reddy, Court Bailiff R/o C/o Sangareddy Civil Court, Nazarath, sanga Reddy, tvledak Disl 3. Ramchandra Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Service R/o C/o Majeera Grammena Bank, Pedda Kanjerla, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak Dist 4. Narasimha Reddy, S/o Shiva Reddy, Agriculture R/o Cheriyal Village, Sanga Reddy, Medak Dist 5. Perushottam Reddy, S/o Late Siva Reddy, Agriculture Ryo 11-8-94/3, Krantinage, Near Huda colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad 6. Narotham Reddy, S/o Buchi redy, Agriculture R/o 11-8-94/3, Krantinage, Near Huda colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad 7. Rukkamma, Wo Shiva Reddy, Agriculture R/o 1 '1-8-94/3, Krantinage, Near Huda colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad 8. P. Aruna, Lv/o Manrpal RedC;,, Household R/o H.No 823, BHEL, Ra machand rapura nr, l\ledak Drst 9. L. Maniamrra, Wio Late [.4a ia Reddy, Househotd R/o H.No.B23, BHEL, Ramachandrapura m, L4edal.t Dist 10. L. Satyamma, W/o Late Veera Reddy, Household Affairs R/o Cheriyal Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Medak Dist 11.Vishala, Dio Late [4alla Reddy, Wo. Veera Reddy, Household C/o Veerajun Reddy court Employee Distrlct Court Building, Sanga Reddy, t\ileclak Dist 12.Viplava, W/o Govardhan Reddy, D/o Late lr/alla Reddy, Household RJo Gudpally Village, Zaheerabad mandal, It4edak District 13. K. Prameela, w/o Lakshman Reddy, Household R/o Kcrpal Village, pulkal Mandal, Medak District 14.Kamalamma, w/o Buchi Reddy, Household affairs RJo Chiryal Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Medak District. 15. Pushpamma, D/o Late Buchi Reddy, W/o Vittal Reddy Household R/o Konapur Village, Near Gandipet, Rajender Nagar Mandal. R.R.District. 16.Punyamma, D/o Late Buchi Reddy, W/o Venkat Reddy, R/o t 1-t86/1, Opp to SHivalayam , Fatehnagar, Ba anagar mandal, Hyderat,ad. 17. Suvarna, D/o Late Buchi Reddy, Wo Raj Reddy Housr:wife R/o pedda Amberpet, Hayathnagar lrrlandal, Ranga Reddy district. 18. L Sriniv_asa Reddy, S/o Late Ranga Reddy, Agriculture R/o Chieriyat Village, Medak Distnct. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANT Nos. 3,4,5,7,8,10 to 16, 18 23,24,25,26, plaintiff Note: Appeal against R-1 1 , R-'14 and R-18 are dismissed for default vie Court Order dated 17-08-2015. Counsel for the Appellant Nos. 2, 3 & 4: SRI J. C. FRANCIS Counsel for the Appellant No. 1: SRI B. JAGANADHA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri VIVEK JAIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 9, 10 &12: Sri K. RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2,3,4 & 18: SRI J. C. FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent No.13: P. SUMA LATHA Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: Sri MEHERCHAND NORI Counsel for the Respondent No. 5, 7, 8, 15, 16 & 17: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN SECOND APPEAL Nos.862 OF cooo AND 43 OF 2ooe COMMON GMENT: Both these appeals arise out of'same suit as such, they are being taken up flor disposal by way of'this common judgment 2. S.A.No.862 of zooa and S.A.No. +3 ol 2oog have been dilected against the judgments and decrees d.ated 28.o4,.2c)o6 in A.S.Nos.ti6 and {i5 of zooq respectively, on thc file ol the Special Judge ftrr trial of oflences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Scssions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short 'lorver appellate Court'). A.S.Nos.66 and 65 of 2oo4 were directed against the judgment and dccree dated 25.o6.2ooq in O.S.No. 123 ol 1991 on the [-rle of the Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy (for sholt, trial Court). The said appeals rvere dismissed. The said suit was filed by the appellant in S.A.No.ii 62 of 2oo} fbr partition and separate possession in respect o[the suit schedulc A to C properties. The said suit was partly decreed allowing alternative relief and disallorved the main relief and rest of the claims. 3. The appellant in S.A.No.s62 of zooi is the plaintiff and the respondents therein are the defendants in the suit. Defbndant Nos.l9 to 22 in the suit have filed S.A.No.a3 of '2oog against the plaintiffand other- I 1 ML,J sn 862 06 & 41 09 Plea din sof laintifl: 4. 'fhc sum ;urd strbstancc of' the case of the plairrtilf is that Shiva Reddy (delc:ndarrt No.(j) is thc natural father of plai:rtifI. 1'he plaintifl is adopted son of Ilanga llcddv (rlcl-endant No.t), who is, the eldcr brothcr of dt:flendants. ]'t,r the saLt' oi convcniencc, the palties hr:reinzrltcr ar-e r-ct'erled to as thr'r,rvcrr: arraycil iir thc suit Shiva Rcdd1,. 'fhc said adoprion took place in tlre year' 1969. -I-he Srnt.Linsanrrla (iilst u.ili' ol drlbndant No. t). -l-he suit schcduic_C 5 adoptivc fathel nran-it.cl ont' Srnt.Lingamma (first rvifb). When rro clrildlen \\'(,rc l)()rr) through Srnt.Lingamma, he mar-ricd Smt.Kistamnra (de{'endant No.2). Thc I.t defi,ndant perlormed marr iase ol plaintiff and in tht'sedding t:;rr-d, hrs r)arn(.\\as shown as lathcr of'plaintifI. -I'hc suit sc hr:dulc-,\ prr)lxrr-tics, which consist of a.qr-icultural lands admeasur-intt Ac. 176-t14 guntas. house properties, cattle slred, rice rnill and gold, silr.er, copper', brass and wooden articles, are the ancestral and jointly acqtrirc:<l properties o1' clclbndant No. t and his thlee brothcr-s Veera Reddy (dicrl), Shiva Redrly (defendant No.t;) and Buchi Reddy (delendant No.t)). 'lht: suit sclredule-B propertics. which consist ol agrictrlttrral lartcls acln'reasuring Ac.22-24 guntas situated Cheril,al Villatre, Sansarcddy Mandal, l\{r.dak District, werc acquisitions of late IVII-,J sA 862 06 & 41 09 properties, consisting of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.g-oo quntas Cheriyal Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, rvere acquired by Smt.Kistamma (defendant No.2) from her maternal sidc 6. It is claimed by the plaintiff that defendant No. I is having l/'l'd' share in suit schedule-A properties. Defendant No.t lilcd declarations bef,ore the Land Reforms Tribunal (fo. short, Tribunal) in C.C.No. 167a./S/25 declaring that the plaintiff is the adopted son; the properties are the ancestral properties and thc plaintiff arrd t" dcfi-'ndant were having half share each. Further, in the declaratiou, the lands in Sy.No.9o were relerred as plaintiffs lands which werc purchased by first wife of delendant no. I in the name of plaintifl. The Tribunal, basing on such dec'laration and the evidence let in by the declarant (defendant No. t ) passed order dated 14,.04,.1977 dividing l/'l"h share held by defbndant No. I in the suit schedule-A properties into two half shares. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for half share which is I / 16'h share in the suit schedule-A properties. After the death of defendant No-t, the plaintiff amended the claim laying claim for 1/4rh share in the suit schcdule-A properties being the only surviving legal heir (adopted son) of'dcfbndant No. l. 3 N,IL,J sA 862 06 & 43 09 1. 'fhc 1>lr:adines irr thr: p):rint furthcr shorv that on account o[old age oi dclcnclarrt No l, thc other asnates have poisened the mind of defbndant No.l, due to u'hich, rlclcnclarrt No. l threatened the plaintifl'that he rvould execute a Will deed t.listribLrt irrg the properties to third parties. Due tcr this, therc s erc difli'rcnccs lrt.L rleen the plaintiff antl dcllndant No. 1. A panr:hayat rvas also hclcl in llrc presence ofelders and in the panchayath dt:fi:ndant No. I rrgain thrcatt.rrt,rl tl'rat he rvould not givc any piecc of land to the plaintift. Untlcr tlrost. t.ircumstances, the p -escnt suit has been fl lt:il. Plead in of Dcfendants: ti. Defi:ndant No. I flled lris s'ritten statement. After the death of dcfLndant No. t, his rvilb i.t:. 2"d defendant filed writtcn statenrcnt. I)eflndant Nos.J anrl .t Iilul ;r common u,ritten statenlent. Dcfbndant Nos.(i to s filcd a c()nrntol) s r-itten statement supporting the plaintifl's clainr of arloption arrrl entitlt,rrrcnt of' plaintilF in thc suit prr>perties Dcfcndant Nos..:r,9 and to fllt,tl a commou rvritten statemcr)t. Defbndarrt Nos. l3 and I5 adoptcd thc rvr-it1e:n statement of defendant Nos.g and 4 9. Deft:ntlant No 2q filcd sr:1>arate written statement pteading that I{orrda Rcdtll', u ho is one of rlre brothers o[ Ranga Reddy (D-t), Vcera 4 ML,J sA 862 06 & 43 09 Reddy (died), Shiva Reddy (D-o) and Buchi Reddy (D-e), is also having share in the suit schedule properties since the suit schedule properties are inherited from late Malla Reddy, who is the father ol'Konda Reddy and his other brothers. lo. The claim of other defendants, who opposed the claim of the plaintiff,, is that suit schedule-A properties are self-acquisitions of Rarrga Reddy (D-r), Veera Reddy(died), Shiva Reddy (D-e) and Buchi Reddy (D-9). Delendant No. I went in illitam to Venkat Reddy in tlte same village and married his daughter Smt.Lingamma. Thc suit scheclule-B properties are the properties inherited by his wilb from her lather Vcnkat Reddy. They also pleaded that Malla Reddy, who is the father- ol Ilanga Reddy, Veera Reddy, Shiva Reddy, Buchi Reddy and Kondal Reddy, was not having any land. After Ranga Reddy went in illitom to Venkat Reddy, with his advise and common labour of other three brothers i.e., Veera Reddy, Shiva Reddy and Buchi Reddy, they acquired the suit schcdule-A properties with their own efforts and contributions. Hence, they are holding common ownership and possession over thc suit schedule-A properties. 5 6 ML,J sA 862 06 & 43 09 statements sl)ccilicall)'clainrirrg that thcre is no adoption olplaintifl The I "' dci'errdant says that flrst rr i{b oI def'endant No. I was against the adoption of't:hikllen ol her' ltusband's brothers on ti're ground that such adoption rvoLrld l;r'ing difterenei,amor-rg brothers in selccting a child. fhe defcndant No.2 rl,as inclint'tl to get the adoption o1'the child from her parcnts'side. ,A.ccolding to rk,fcndant No.2, there rv;rs no consent on the I l. 'l'he rlc[i,nclarrts, pitltit Lrlarly clcfendant No.2, (iled written part ol trvrt rr ir es of dc'fLn,l;rnt No. I lor adoption ol children of any lrlotlrer o[' rlcllrrrlan t No. I . 'l'hey denied the adoption claim ol the plaintifl. t2_ ancl his rr,ifL 2',,r deflndanr Orieinalll', delc'ndant No. I also filed the written statement claiming that thcre wzrs no cor)scnt fl-orn his wives lor the ad,tption. He has also denied the ?l\:ermeut that rlrt' suit schcduie prop,:r-tics arc a n ces tral pr-opcr-ties. l)uring thc pendt.nL:.y of thc suit, beforc defi:ndant No.l was examined, hc dieil. -l-lt.relbr-c. orher defendants wefe brought on record Accolding to defcndant No. l. rlrrring his life time, he had executed a Will decd convcying the l)r()per-tit:s in lavour of the children of his brothers ML,J sA 862 06 &_43 09 13. Defendant No. I claimed that there was no r,alid adoptiolt of thc plaintift He has claimed that suit schedule-B properties were inherited by his first wifle from her father. After the death of his wife's father, the Iands were mutated in the name of his wife. After the death olhis rvife, he has succeeded to such properties. Suit schedule-C properties beionged t<r delendant No.2 which were acquired from her parents' side. Issues in trial Court: 14,. The trial Court, on the basis of the above pleadings, has h'amcd thc lollorving issues " l . Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit properties as prayed [or? z. Whether the plaintiffand deFendants are co-parceners? g. Whether the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of delendants? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. To rvhat relief?" On o,1,.12.1996. tlre following additional issues were framed " t. Whether the plaintiff is adopted son of Sri Rangareddy-D t and entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit lands as prayed for? 2. Whether D t and his brothers purchased the lands rvith their orvn income and they are in possession of the lands of 'A' schedule as 7 ML.J sA 862 06 & 43 09 tertants in conrr)lclu cxccpl Iiondareddy ancl plaintifl'has no right in thc said larrrl ro clairrr aur' p;rr-ritioni) .9. Whcther' 'll' sclrrrlrrle l;rntl bclong to the uile of'Dt and Dt is absolute ou,rrr:r of s;rirl lautl.' -1,. \\'hether the laurls ret;rirrcd in 'C' schedule are stridana l)l'operty of D2 Kistan'rrna anrl not Ii:rlrlc fbr partition? 5. \Vhether the \\'ill dcr:tl cxecuted by Dr dated 1.1.1o.91, is valid an<l bincling on partics ? 6. Whether H.No.s-t-zlg/l)/t is self acquired property of DS? 7. Whcther thc Clorrlt fbe pait[ is insuflicient? 8. 'l'o rvhat lclief?" Again on 2O.r) L t995, rhe lirll,rn ing additional issuc .,r'as lramed: ''Whcthcr- tltr. horrsc N() l2; situatcd at Venrartna Colny at R.C.Purarn is acquircrl orrr ol the income ol the suit schedule Sy.No.P arrd uhethcr is availalrlc Ii,r- rrar-tition?" Evidence of Darties: | (t. The plaintift, to srrpport lris case, examined P.Ws. t to ,t and relied Lrpon Exs.A-l to r\-18. 'l'hc rl,'f'endants, to support thcir case, examined I).Ws. I to 7 :rnd got mar-l<ed ltrs.B- I to B-29 Trial Court findines: 16. -I-he trial Court, orr appr eciation of evidence on record, did not accept thc plaintifl's clainr of llrc adoption and accordingly, his main clairn f6r 1/,t'n shalc in thc srrit sclrt.tltrle-A proper-ties was r-cjectcd. However, the altcr-nati'e r,:liel'of thc PlrrintrfF to grant l/4,,h sharc fi-om natural tt ML.J sA 862 06 &.13 09 father's (D-o) share (t/,t) in the suit schedule-A properties excluding thr: house property at Sangareddy, which is shown as item No.6 of suit schedule-A 'properties, is allowed. The claim of the plaintiff for partitiorr in respect of the suit schedule B and C properties was dismissed. The trial Court has also recognized the execution olWilI deed and codicils by defendant No.l, which have not been disputed by any of the parties Hence, the said documents were upheld and rights under such Will and Codicils wcre also upheld. The claim of Konda Reddy's branch for share in schedulc-A was re.iccted. Aggrieved by the said iudgment and decree, the plaintill filed o '17. A.S.No.66 <>l q.ooE and the legal heirs o[Konda Reddy liled A.S.No.65 of 2004,. Legal heirs of late Buchi Reddy filed cross appeals i.e., A.S.No.3 of zoo; in A.S.No.65 of coo+ and A.S.No.4 of 2oo5 in A.S.No.66 o1' ztxt+ claiming that they alone are entitled to suit schedule-C properties. Findin s of lower a ellate Court: I ti. The lower appellate Court, upon perusing the records, disrnisscd A.S.Nos.65 and 66 of zoo4, confirming the findings of the trial Court and allowed the cross appeals A.S.Nos.s and + of 2oo5 and granted relief to the legal heirs of Buchi Reddy to succeed in respect of suit schedule-C l0 ML,J s 862 06 & 43 09 propertics. Challc'ngine the surrri., plaintiii'tiled S.A.No.8(;2 ol z006 and the legal lreirs of Konda Rcddl, filt:d S.A.No.a.s ol 2oog Substantial Ouestions of Larl: t9 This Corrrt has li;rmcd tlrt firllorving substantial qucstions of law: "(i) Whethcr the (lorrrts lrr,lol can nullily the fintlings, conclusion, ordcrs passed by a (:olnpetcnt Court oflarv concerning adoption i.e., Land Refolms TribLrnal, u,lrich are subsequent proceedings in view of Sections Io arxl t l olC.l'.(li, (ii) Whcther-it is pcrrnissilrlc under larv fbr the C()urts below to grant a rclief'to tlrc lcsporrrk'rrts in a suit fbr partition which was disrrrisscd rvhelcirr no clairrrs u,t're made as per lar,v ) 2(\. Ileald lerarncd corrnsel til- both sides hnd perusetl the written arguments flled b,v ltol Ir thc' paltrcs Findin on substantial o rresti on of law No. I 21. Thc rnain contcntion of t lrc learned counsel for the plaintiff is that thc plaintifl'and defi:rrrlant \--o. I lrave separately filerl declarations belbre the Tribunal. Thc clainrs in tlr.clarations and the t:vidence let in have establishctl thc adoption of rhc plaintiff by dele ndarrt No. t. There is a fiuding fl'om the -I-rilrunal that the suit schedule-A properties are ancestral properties of'rk:t-enciar t No. l, and thc plaintiff being the adopted son, is entitled to half'slrare in thc share oi'delendant No. I in respect of suit schcdrrlc-A Propt:r.tir:s- It is irlso co,tended that in thc'fribunal, the l1 ML,J sA 862 06 &43 09 adoption deed rvas produced under Ex.A-13. Purohith and rvitness to the adoption deed r,vere also examined before the Tribunal apart from examining the piaintiff and defendant No. I and they all supported the adoption. In the adoption deed, there is a categorical mention that the adoption is done in the year 1969. Basinp; on such adoption deed and oral evidence, the Tribunal has granted 5oo/o ol the lands of ancestral properties ofdelendant No.1 to the plaintiff Such findings have attained finality. Hence, the findings olthe Tribunal bind delendant No.I and any person claiming; through him. Thereficre, such findings operate as rrs ludtcata and also estoppel by cause of action. According to him, when defendant No.t admitted the adoption of the plaintiff before the Tribunal, he cannot turn back and contend that there is no valid adoption. The Courts belorv have not considered the eflect of the order of the Tribunal which clearly demonstrates that the suit schedule-A properties are the ancestral properties and the plaintiff is adopted son and defendant No.t and the ptaintiff are entitled for half share each in the agricultural lands which defendant No. I got jointly with his other three brothers. 22. The Iearned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that after the demise of defendant No.l, the other defendants were brought on record either as legal heirs or on the basis of Will deed executed by No. t could r)ot sct up anrl thrrrl case must be undcr dcfbndant No. t and thcy cannot go bcyonrl rvh:rl dt,fi:ndant No. I could plead- Finally, he has contended that the fintlirrrrs ol the Tribunal bind the civil Court IIos cr.er, he has lairlv ;rqlrrrtl that lrom thc cvidcn( c led by the plaintiff the present suit, no fault can be found with thc Courts belorv in detendant No. I and tlrt'1, .. ',,,,,,,, set up any plead ng rr hich defendant tIl the plaintifl Such a t lairn is flrst time raised in tlre present second t2 IVIL,J sA 862 06 & 43 09 alrpeals rvhich cannot bc alloscrl. The piea ol resludica!.a must be pleaded aud pre','ious plcadings nrrrst Irc placed on rccord. 'l'he brief'pleading refi:rled in the ortlcr is rrot srrlllcient cnough to adjt,dicate the plea o[ ras rcjcctir)g thc piaintift's clainr o1 adoption. Flowever', his contention is that thc civil Court r:annot n:-atljtrtlicate the issuc of adoption rvhich is alrcady adj udicatcd by t)rc 'l'r-ilrr r rr a i 23 The conterrtiorr ol the Iealrred counsel lrrr the contesting dcfendants, rvho opposed tlrc arloption, is rhat the Tribunal hrrs no.jurisdiction to decidc the validity of' ack,ption. The Tribunal has got a limited .juliscliction and any firrrlinr{ torrching thc validity o1'arloption is without julisdiction aucl such firrdirrgs tlo not bind the defcnd:Lnts. [t is further contended that no issuc o1' rtt.jutlicata is raiscd beforc the trial Court by ludicaLa. ML,J sA 862 06 & 43 09 24 It is also their contention that the plea of res jtdicata can also be waived, and in fact, the plaintiff waived such a plea and chose to re-establish his claim of adoption. It is contended that from such evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is clear that he lailed to establish that there is valid adoption. Thereflore, there is no issue of res judicata. 25. It is also their contention that the Tribunal is having a very limited