MADAN LAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal. He has lost in the Trial Court as well as in the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) PLAINTIFF/appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on allegations that he constituted a co-parcenary with Jagram (Original defendant No. 7 in the suit and it is a mystery how his name has disappeared from cause title of lower Appellate Court and Memo of this second appeal ). According to plaint allegations, said Jagram, with consent of his wife, by an unregistered document (Exh. P-5) adopted appellant on 18-11-1970 after performing religious rituals and as per custom. Subsequently, a registered deed of adoption was executed on 16-1-1998 (Exh. P-1 ). Further case of the appellant was that Jagram, without any legal necessity and partition between the plaintiff and himself, could not have sold to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 suit property more particularly described in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint. Thus, plaintiff sought a declaration that the sales effected by Jagram were not binding upon him and as he continued to cultivate the suit land, therefore he also sought relief of permanent injunction not to interfere with his possession over the suit land.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 to 6 in their written statement denied the plaint allegations including the adoption and deed of adoption. Jagram in his separate written statement denied the adoption and joint ownership of the suit properties with plaintiff. Said written statement is dated 27-8-1997. Based upon pleadings, trial Court framed issues. Initially, Trial Court, while deciding preliminary issue, returned the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, however, in appeal that order was set aside and case was remanded back for trial. Thereafter, parties led evidence. Upon appreciation of evidence, Trial Court found that the so called adoption was not proved. It was also found that on the date of the so called adoption, plaintiff had crossed the prescribed age of 15 years and he has married. Trial Court held that Exh. P-1 had no evidentiary value, as it did not bear the signature of plaintiff's natural father, more over it was executed and registered after Jagram had filed his written statement denying adoption. So far as Exh. P-5 is concerned, Trial Court found that it was written on plain piece of paper and as such it was a useless piece of paper for want of registration and other reliable and cogent evidence to establish contrary custom or usage. On these findings, trial Court non-suited the plaintiff. Matter was carried in appeal by the plaintiff. As stated, the appeal was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.