PRANKUMARI Vs. PYARELAL AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing Second Appeal Nos. 723 of 1995 and 550 of 1996, the present appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur, in Civil Appeal Nos. 59A/89 and 60A/89, whereby learned Additional District Judge, while deciding Civil Appeal No. 59A/89 filed by the present appellants and Civil Appeal No. 60A/89 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, has partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-2-1988 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur in Civil Suit No. 22A/82, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur has dismissed the suit on the ground that appellant/ plaintiff Smt. Prankumari was not adopted as a daughter by deceased Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya, therefore, Prankumari is not entitled for any decree relating to the property and also declared the sale deed executed in favour of respondents Pyarelal, Ramashankar and Khetni Bai null and void. By filing two appeals viz., Second Appeal No. 723 of 1995 and Second Appeal No. 550 of 1996, the present appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 59A/89 and 60A/89, whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the finding that Gaya Prasad has not adopted Pran Kumari and held that Pran Kumari is not competent to file civil suit for declaration of two sale deeds executed by Sankhuliya Bai in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother as null and void.

(2.) The present two appeals have been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Appellant No. 1 Smt. Prankumari in Second Appeal No. 723 of 1995 has filed Civil Suit for declaration of possession against one Mu. Sankhuliya, respondents Pyarelal, Ramashankar and mother of respondents No. 1 and 2 viz. deceased Khetni Bai on the basis that Prankumari was taken into adoption by Gaya Ahir, husband of Smt. Sankhuliya (since deceased) after taking consent of Smt. Sankhuliya in the year 1957. Thereafter, Gaya Prasad died and the property left by Gaya Prasad was succeeded by his adoptive daughter Prankumari and his wife Smt. Sankhuliya. Smt. Sankhuliya alone was not competent to sell the property, but by two registered sale deeds dated 6-1-1979 without any authority respondents Pyarelal, Rama Shankar and deceased Khetni Bai succeeded in execution of sale deeds by Smt. Sankhuliya in their names. By filing separate written statements, Smt. Sankhuliya, alleged adoptive mother of Prankumari, has denied the factum of adoption and has supported the case of the defendants relating to transfer of the suit property. Contesting defendants viz., Pyare Lal, Rama Shankar and Khetni Bai, have filed written statements and have denied the factum of adoption of Prankumari and have specifically pleaded that Sankhuliya Bai has executed sale deeds in favour of Pyare Lal, Rama Shankar and Khetni Bai after receiving consideration and has handed over the possession of the property. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur has dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-2-1988 in Civil Suit No. 22A/82 on the ground that Prankumari is not adoptive daughter of Gaya Prasad & Sankhuliya and Sankhuliya has not sold the land to Pyare Lal, Rama Shankar and Khetni Bai. Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court by both the parties. By filing Civil Appeal No. 59A/89, appellant No. 1 Prankumari has challenged the part of the decree relating to factum of adoption which was against her and respondents/other appellants namely Pyare Lal, Ramashankar and deceased Khetni Bai have challenged the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 60A/89 relating to validity of sale deeds. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur has upheld the finding relating to factum of adoption that appellant Prankumari was not adopted by Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya, but reversed the finding relating to sale transaction and has held that Prankumari was not competent to file any civil suit for declaration of sale deeds executed by Sankhuliya in favour of the aforesaid appellants and declaration of such document null and void is not sustainable under the law.