TARA CHAND JAIN Vs. ATTAR CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 8.7.1988 passed by the first Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 8.10.1984 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Delhi. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit for possession of a room, filed by the respondent- plaintiff while the first appellate Court decreed the suit. The appellant- defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 3.2.1989. The questions of law were referred to in para-18 of the grounds of appeal. Additional questions of law were also allowed. The same are as under: "1. Whether the plaintiff/respondent was validly given in adoption when he was not put in the lap of the alleged adoptive father by his mother? "2. Whether the finding of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff respondent was given in adoption with the consent of his mother is not supported by any evidence on record? "3. Whether the learned Additional District Judge could infer consent of mother to giving in adoption from her alleged presence in upper floor Zenankhana while adoption is said to have taken place in ground floor, when no such case was set up in pleadings? "4. Whether the learned Additional District Judge has misread the evidence and has ignored important piece of evidence? "5. Whether the learned Additional District Judge has not examined the evidence about adoption and its validity from correct legal perspective? "6. Whether the alleged adoption which changes right of heritance in the property can be inferred when neither the date, month or year of the adoption is certain and when admittedly no relations of the parties though alive have been produced to prove it, when no contemporaneous evidence like change of father's name in school or college record after the alleged adoption has been made and when no documentary evidence at all in proof of the alleged adoption has been produced? "7. Whether non-consideration of the above important facts does not make the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge liable to be set aside on account of non-examination of the matter from correct legal perspective and being a judgment grossly unreasonable and unjust? "8. Whether finding of learned Additional District Judge is based on conjectures when he says that the defendant/appellant had pressurized his mother to depose falsely in the case denying adoption when suggestion that any such pressurization had taken place was not even given by the plaintiff respondent Smt. Rajjo Devi when she appeared as a witness? "9. Whether the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi is not vitiated by the fact that he has considered that rent receipt PW-2/2 was obtained by the defendant/appellant from the plaintiff/respondent and no objection certificate for obtaining the water connection when said documents were issued to another person who is tenant in the property and when admittedly the case of the plaintiff/respondent was that water connection was sought to be taken by the defendant/appellant without his consent? "10. Whether the respondent can be deemed in law to have been adopted by Sham Lal when admittedly the natural mother of the respondent did not give him in adoption to Sham Lal at the time of ceremony of giving and taking and no evidence of any agreement between her and adopted parents to give and receive the boy in adoption or evidence of any circumstances making it impossible for the mother to give the respondent in adoption has been produced. "11. Whether the findings of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge about adoption are based on inadmissible evidence or ignoring important evidence or misreading of the evidence.

(3.) Mr. G.K.Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant in addition to the above questions has again sought permission to amend the grounds of appeal about the validity of adoption of plaintiff by his maternal grandfather but, in fact, the said question is already covered in questions 1, 2, 3, 10 and 11 mentioned above and both the subordinate Courts have discussed this question in Iesue No. 3.