MUKESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR & 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed present appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by Second Joint District Judge, Junagadh, dated 27.9.2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1990 and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No.474 of 1988.

(2.) The brief facts of the appellant case are that, the plaintiff is an adoptive son of one Shri Patel Govindbhai Becharbhai. Late Shri Govindbhai Becharbhai adopted him as a son on 7.5.1982 by a registered adoption deed. The plaintiff obtained a letter of administration under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. After the death of Govindbhai Becharbhai the plaintiff applied to the Revenue Authority to enter his name as an heir of deceased Govindbhai Becharbhai Patel in the revenue record of land. The revenue authority held that there is no legal adoption and as the age of the plaintiff was 21 years at the time of adoption, as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, plaintiff cannot be held as an adoptive son of deceased Govindbhai Becharbhai Patel and, therefore, they rejected the claim of the plaintiff. The Assistant Collector passed an order dated 27.5.1985, against the which the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Collector, but the said appeal was also dismissed by the Collector against which the plaintiff preferred revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, which was also dismissed by order dated 24.6.1988. Thereafter plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.474 of 1988. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Junagadh vide judgment and order dated 7.8.1990 allowed the suit. The original defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1990. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.9.2000.

(3.) Heard Ms.Utpala S. Bora, learned advocate for the appellant. She has submitted that learned Appellate Court has misread and misconstrued the documentary evidence produced on record. She has submitted that learned Appellate Court erred in law while setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court as well as in interpreting the provisions contained in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. She has submitted that learned Appellate Court erred in appreciating the required mode of proof of custom and not properly appreciating the deed of adoption.