HANUMANTRAO RAMRAO DESHMUKH Vs. KRISHNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration that he is the adopted son of the defendant and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant permanently from selling, mortgaging, gifting or alienating the suit property. The suit-land is Survey No. 11 admeasuring 20 acres 19 gunthas situated at village Dhanora Bhogaon Tarfe Aral Taluka Bamtnagar and the house as mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of the defendant under a registered Deed of Adoption as well as the Kararnama which is executed by the defendant in his favour. The Kararnama is Exhibit 61 and the registered Deed of Adoption is Exh. 58. The plaintiff avers that, according to the Kararnama Exh. 61, adoption took place after performing necessary ceremonies by the defendant and under the said Kararnama it was agreed by the defendant that she will enjoy the property belonging to her till her life-time and she also agreed that she will have no right to mortgage or sell or alienate or in any manner deal with the property in dispute.

(2.) The plaintiff says that the defendant executed a deed on 25th June, 1966, admitted the adoption of the plaintiff. There is an allegation in the plaint in regard to the custom. According to the plaintiff, the boy above the age of 15 years could be taken in adoption and such a custom is continued in the family. The plaintiff says that his adoption was performed by the defendant accordingly and he has acquired the status of an adopted son. He sued for declaration of adoption and perpetual injunction as stated above.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit of plaintiff disputing the Kararnama Exhibit 61 and stated that the Kararnama is not binding on her. There was no necessary of any such agreement to be executed in writing. She did not admit that any such agreement was executed by her as incorporated in the said Kararnama Exhibit 61. She disputed all other contents and the alleged custom also. However, she admitted that she has executed a registered deed of adoption on 25th June, 1966 although she stated that no religious ceremonies were performed, and, therefore, no adoption has actually taken place in pursuance of the deed. The defendant disputed that the alleged Kararnama is on the simple paper and unless the stamp duty is paid it is not admissible in evidence. The defendant disputed that the plaintiff cannot be the adopted son as she has not taken him in adoption and she disputed the contents regarding the adoption in presence of the witnesses.