THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.742 OF 2010 ORDER: The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below filed this Second Appeal aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 16.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2008 by the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2008 passed in O.S.No.16 of 2000 by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and possession over the suit schedule property, for past profits of Rs.31,060/- with subsequent interest and for future profits. The facts emanated from the pleadings are that one Kandregula Venkanna and Subbayamma @ Subbalakshmi are husband and wife. Subbayamma predeceased her husband on 2.01.1988, whereas Venkanna died on 21.02.1995. The first defendant by name Kandregula Satyanarayana is the younger brother of said Venkanna. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are purchasers of item No.6 and item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties from defendants 1 to 3. The said Subbayamma is the maternal aunt of PW.2, who is natural mother of the plaintiff. The husband of plaintiff, who was examined as PW.5, is the son of junior paternal uncle of PW.2. The mother of natural father of plaintiff i.e., PW.3 and Subbayamma are sisters. The plaintiff’s husband Rama Rao is the son of K. Nagabhushanam, who is the brother of mother of PW.3. PW.2 is the daughter of Narasamma. According to the plaintiff, late Kandregula Venkanna and his wife Subbayamma adopted her on 14.03.1971 as per the custom at the house of K. Venkanna, in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. She was given in adoption to Venkanna by her natural parents, namely, PWs.2 and 3, and letter of adoption was drafted by Purohit Mangalampalli Annapurnayya of Godi Village, which was signed by Venkanna, natural parents of the plaintiff as well as the scribe. The plaintiff was brought up by Venkanna since her infancy as adoptive daughter. Venkanna purchased Ac.0.30 cents in RS.No.48/1 under registered sale deed dated 15.07.1994 and settled another Ac.0.30 cents in the same survey number. He got admitted the plaintiff in elementary school, high school, and performed her marriage in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. After joining her husband, the plaintiff sold Ac.0.60 cents of land, and she was always treated as daughter of Venkanna. When Subbayamma fell ill, the plaintiff and her husband met medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to treat her for brain tumor. To discharge the said debt, Ac.0.60 cents of land was sold. Item Nos.5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties belonged to Subbayamma were left in possession of Venkanna. After the death of Subbayamma, the properties were devolved upon Venkanna and plaintiff. After the death of Subbayamma item No.6 of the plaint schedule property was conveyed by defendants 1 to 3 to defendant No.4. While so, Venkanna also died intestate on 21.02.1995. On his death, the defendants 1 to 3 took possession of the property. The first defendant conveyed Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to fifth defendant. Item Nos.2 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties are wet lands yielding 30 bags per acre. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule properties and for past and future profits. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments, and the same was adopted by defendants 2, 3 and 5. They specifically denied the adoption of the plaintiff contending that the plaintiff is the fostered daughter of Venkanna and Subbayamma along with one Kamala daughter of Bangaramma. She was treated as Abhimana Putrika. The plaintiff and her husband created a fabricated Will said to have been executed by the said Subbayamma, and therefore, the matter was referred to one late Kodamarthi Subbarao, Ex Village Munsif and six others. In the said dispute, the plaintiff and her husband admitted that they fabricated the Will and wrongfully kept the gold jewellery of Subbyamma and they promised to return the same to Venkanna. But they did not return the gold jewellery. A legal notice was issued to the effect that Subbayamma executed an agreement of sale in favour of Appala Narasimharaju on 5.06.1987 for Ac.0.90 cents in RS.No.90/2 of Bendamurlanka village. A reply notice was issued on 9.06.1989 denying the said contents. Not satisfying the same, the plaintiff and her husband filed O.S.No.52 of 1989 through the said Appala Narasimharaju. In the said suit, Venkanna filed written statement denying not only the agreement of sale, but also the adoption. The Court dismissed the suit holding that the adoption is not legal and valid and that the agreement of sale is forged, against which A.S.No.92 of 2000 is filed and the same is pending before the High Court. Treating the plaintiff as Abhimana Putrika, the properties were given to her under a settlement deed. After the death of his wife, Venkanna became the absolute owner of the entire properties. During his life time, Venkanna executed a Will dated 19.03.1990 cancelling the earlier Will dated 6.09.1988. The properties were bequeathed to his brother/first defendant. During the life time of Venkanna, he himself sold the properties to defendants 2 o 4 under registered sale deeds. The Suit filed without seeking declaration that she is the adoptive daughter of Venkanna, the suit for declaration of right title over the plaint schedule property is not maintainable. On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for getting declaration of title for suit property as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim possession as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim profits as prayed for? 4. To what relief? Subsequently as per the orders in I.A.No.154 of 2004, dated 8.07.2004, the following additional issues were framed. 1. Whether the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff is true, legal and valid? 2. Whether the alleged adoption letter dated 14.03.1971 is true, valid and enforceable? 3. To what relief? In order to prove their respective pleas, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1, her natural parents as PWs.2 and 3, husband as PW.5 and three more witnesses as PWs.4, 6 and 7 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant himself was examined as DW.1, third defendant as DW.2 apart from examining two more witnesses as DWs.3 and 4 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.9. The trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that she is the adoptive daughter of Venkanna and Subbayamma. On appeal being preferred, the lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of the entire evidence dismissed the appeal holding that Ex.A.1 itself is contradictory; that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 contradicts on material aspects, and that the evidence of plaintiff as PW.1 differs with the contents of Ex.A.1 and the plaint averments. Apart from that in the written statement filed by Venkanna, during his life time, in O.S.No.52 of 1989, he denied the adoption, which can be taken for limited purpose. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish the adoption. Mere attending the needs and necessities, education and performance of marriage, giving shelter, providing food, clothes etc., to the plaintiff does not come under the ingredients of adoption under Hindu Law and under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. DW.2, who is the son of the first defendant, deposed that Venkanna bequeathed Ac.0.57 cents in RS No.48/1 to him and his brother- second defendant under a settlement deed dated 16.10.1990, under Ex.B.5, reserving life interest with him. The plaintiff miserably failed to prove the adoption within the meaning of Hindu Law and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal. The concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below are on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, which do not give raise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 6th August, 2010 Js.