SURAJ BUX SINGH Vs. RAM SHANKAR ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the Judgement and decree dated 25-9-75 passed by shri G.S. Seth, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, in appeal no. 206 of 1974-75.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant, Suraj Bux Singh, filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of 1951 against Ram Shanker and Raghunath (now deceased), and others, on the allegations that Smt. Rani alias Ranno, widow of Niranjan, was the tenure holder of the land in dispute and after the death of Smt. Ranno, defendant no. 2, Raghunath, came in possession, that defendant no. 2, Raghunath, executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff-appellant on 6-10-70 and since then he had been in possession over the land in dispute. He further stated that defendant no. 1, Ram Shanker, was the daughter son of Smt. Rani alias Smt. Ranno and had no concern with the land in dispute that his possession was unauthorized as he had obtained possession through proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. to which the plaintiff-appellant was not a pary and, hence, the necessity arose for filling the present suit the suit was contested by defendant no. 1 or the allegation that he was the adopted son of Smt. Rani alias Smt. Ranno, who had executed a registered adoption deed no 13-12-51. He further stated that defendant no. 2 Raghunath, was not the legal heir of Smt, Ranno, who had executed a registered adoption deed no. 13-12-51. He further stated that defendant no. 2 Raghunath, was not the legal heir of Smt, Ranno and had never been in possession over the land in dispute and had no right to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff appellant and that on the basis of the alleged sale deed which was fictitious and void, the plaintiff-appellant was decreed by the trial court which held that the adoption of defendant-prefered before the learned Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal vide order dated 25-9-75. Against that order the instant second appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and the judgements passed by both the courts below.