BHARATLAL Vs. CHHERKINBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the plaintiff's second appeal are as under: -

(2.) The following genealogical tree would show the relationship between the parties: - <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-158.jpg">

(3.) Maniram and Salikram forming a Hindu Undivided Family held the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-A, B, C, D, Ka and Kha. It is the case of the plaintiff that Maniram and his wife Chamarin had no issue and therefore plaintiff Bharatlal, since his infancy, was living with Chamarin and was being treated as her son while his natural father is Sunderlal. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Sunderlal gave his son Bharatlal to Smt. Chamarin while Smt. Chamarin took Bharatlal as her son and when Bharatlal attained the age of 16 years, a registered deed was executed by Chamarin acknowledging that Bharatlal was taken as her son ten years before the execution of registered deed dated 22-6-1990 vide Ex.P-1 According to the plaintiff, Chamarin died on 20-1-1991 and her estate was inherited by Bharatlal, her adopted son. However, Kamlabai claiming herself to be an adopted daughter of Maniram and Chamarin relying upon a document Ex.D-1 dated 15-2-1968 sold certain properties to defendants No.5 to 7 on 28-1-1992 despite the plaintiff's protest leading to filing of a suit by the plaintiff claiming partition, allotment of half share and separate possession over the properties mentioned in the plaint which was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement.