Karnataka HC Sends Man’s Disputed Adoption-Based Half-Share Appeal Back for Fresh Review, Letting Both Sides Present More Evidence

The appellant, plaintiff in a partition suit, claimed a half share in the suit properties as the adopted son of R. Nagappa and Gowramma.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the adoption had not been proved; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision

In the second appeal, the High Court framed questions concerning the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) and the production of additional evidence.

It later received additional documents, including sale deeds executed during the litigation that referred to the adoption, and directed evidence to be recorded on them.

Further additional evidence was also received from respondents 3 to 6.

The parties jointly sought remittal to the First Appellate Court, with liberty to adduce further evidence and seek amendments to their pleadings.

Section 16 HAMA provides a rebuttable presumption concerning an adoption made under a registered document purporting to record the adoption and signed by the persons giving and taking the child in adoption; its application was raised as a substantial question but was not finally decided in this judgment.

Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), governs the reception of additional evidence at the appellate stage; the Court had earlier allowed applications to place further documents on record and directed evidence to be taken on them.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, but the Court did not determine the substantial questions on their merits.

The Court did not decide whether the adoption was proved or whether Section 16 HAMA required a presumption in the appellant’s favour.

It had permitted additional evidence, including later-executed sale deeds referring to the adoption, and the parties jointly submitted that they wished to adduce further evidence and potentially amend their pleadings.

In those circumstances, the Court considered remittal appropriate, expressly leaving the parties’ rival contentions open and expressing no view on the merits.

Both sides were permitted to adduce further oral and documentary evidence and to file interlocutory applications, including applications to amend pleadings; the First Appellate Court was directed to decide any such applications in accordance with law and dispose of the appeal within six months from 30 November 2026.

All rival contentions were kept open, and no finding was made on the merits of the adoption or the parties’ claims.