Suit for setting aside an adoption:
The plaintiff states as follows:
1. The plaintiff is the only legal heir to Sri Katreddi Narasimham. Because Sri K. Narasimham died, the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the properties described below, which are left behind by the said Sri. K. Narasimham.
Image Source: theransomchurch.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. But, K. Bhima Sankaram, in collusion with the Settlement Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh managed to record his name for the said properties in the Schedule below as an adopted son of Sri K. Narasimham, being allegedly taken in adoption by Smt. Katreddi Sugunamma, widow of the said Sri. K. Narasimham on 24.9.1984.
3. The defendant was never adopted as a son by Smt. Katreddi Sugunamma.
4. Even if, without conceding, there was an adoption of the defendant by Smt. K. Sugunamma, the same is invalid because-
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(a) The defendant was living with his maternal uncle, since his parents died in a car accident. The prior permission of the Court was not obtained by the guardian before giving him in adoption.
(b) However, the defendant was married much prior to the alleged adoption. In their community, custom does not permit the adoption of married boys.
(c) Neither the maternal uncle of the defendant gave him, nor the alleged adoptive mother took him. So, there is no giving or taking the boy according to the custom. The whole story of adoption was cooked up for taking away the properties of Sri K. Narasimham.
5. The plaintiff is entitled to declaration:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) that the defendant is not the adopted son of Sri K. Narasimham alternatively, adoption of the defendant by Smt. K. Sugunamma, the widow of late Sri K. Narasimham is void.
Written Statement:
1. The Defendant, Sri K. Bhima Sankaram, was validly taken in adoption by Sri K. Narasimham on 15-8-1981, at a function held in Alamuru. Further, the adoption of the defendant was recorded by a registered adoption deed.
2. The defendant denies that no prior permission was taken from the court by his guardian, before giving him in adoption. He further denies that he was married prior to the adoption. His marriage took place much after the adoption in the year 1986.
Hence, the defendant submits that his adoption is valid and binding on the plaintiff.
3. The defendant, therefore submits that the suit may be dismissed with costs.
