RAM JAGAT Vs. KANCHANDEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal. The suit was filed for a decree for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Smt. Rajdei in favour of respondent No. 1, Smt. Kanchandei on 10-4-1969. It was also prayed, in the suit that the adoption deed dt 10-4-69 executed by Smt. Rajdei by which she adopted respondent No. 2 be cancelled. Reliefs of injunction and possession were also claimed. It was set out in the plaint that one Ram Ratan was the owner of certain property including whole of the plots covered by sale deed dt. 10-4-69, Ram Ratan's wife was Smt Rajdei. They had "no issue. They consequently adopted plaintiff-appellant as their son and Ram Ratan executed a registered deed of adoption on 26-4-65. Ram Ratan died on 15-1-67 and plaintiff-appellant being his heir, was entitled to all Ms properties including the plots in question. The adoption deed by which Smt Rajdei adopted respondent No. 2 on 10-4-69 as also the sale deed executed by Smt. Raidei on that very date in favour of respondent No. 1 were bad and were liable to be cancelled

(2.) The suit was contested. It was pleaded that plaintiff-appellant was not adopted by Ram Ratan as his son and Smt. Rajdei validly adopted by registered document respondent No. 2 as her son.

(3.) The trial court, after framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiff was not the adopted son of Ram Ratan. It may be stated that before the trial court, only a certified copy of the adoption deed dated 26-4-1965 was filed. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court, however, the original deed was also filed by the present appellant. Some of the witnesses were recalled and their statement was also recorded. The lower appellate court on an appeal which was preferred by plaintiff-appellant has also found that plaintiff-appellant was not the adopted son of Ram Ratan. The so-called adoption deed has not been executed in accordance with law and ceremony of adoption has also not been performed. Consequently, the decree passed by the trial court was upheld. The plaintiff-appellant has now come up in second appeal before this court.