SEBATI BARAL DEAD Vs. DUNGEI BARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole deceased-defendant who has been substituted by her legal heirs had filed this appeal against the reversing judgment in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff-respondent is the adopted son of the defendant and her deceased husband Banamali Baral.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff-respondent as per plaint is that the plaintiff is the natural born son of Sri Udayanath Baral and Smt. Mana Dei and he was born in the year 1930. When he was aged about 4 years late Banamali Baral and his wife defendant Sebati Baral adopted him as per a giving and taking ceremony accompanied by Data Homa ceremony. Since the time of adoption he is being treated as the adopted son of Banamali Baral and Sebati Baral and as such Sebati Baral has no manner of right to alienate any property of Banamali Baral as the plaintiff has succeeded to the property after death of Banamali Baral as adopted son. But ignoring the plaintiff's right as an adopted son. Sebati Baral wife of late Banamali Baral has sold away the landed property of Banamali Baral as per the sale deed Nos. 4,5702, 3684, 3013 and 5001 on 1-1-81, 28-8-80, 18-5-81, 22-4-80 and 28-8-80 respectively, for which the suit was filed.In the written statement the defendant-Sebati Baral denies all the averments made against her in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of herself and her husband late Banamali Baral. It is stated further in the written statement that the plaintiff was never adopted by them as per a giving and taking ceremony and the plaintiff was not born in the year 1930 and was not adopted by them at the age of 4 years. That the defendant and her deceased husband were quite young during the year 1934 and had not lost hope to beget children by which period of time she was only 25 years of age and her husband was only three years older than her. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is a stranger to the family to the defendant Banamali Baral and he had got no manner of right, title and interest over the property of late Banamali Baral. The sole defendant succeeded to the property of Banamali Baral.Maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground that the suit had been filed for declaration without any consequential relief.

(3.) Considering the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :(1) Is the suit maintainable?(2) Is the suit barred by limitation?(3) Is there any cause of action?(4) Is plaintiff the adopted son of Banamali Baral and the defendant?(5) Whether the adoptive parents of the plaintiff had agreed not to alienate their property?(6) Shall the plaintiff alone succeed to the property of Banamali?(7) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?