JAYAKRUSHNA MAJHI Vs. PRAMILA MALLIK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no.1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The facts which are essential to be exposited are that respondent no.1 along with her mother, Bhama Majhi instituted T.S.No.80 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sonepur for declaration of right, title, interest over the suit land, confirmation of possession and for a declaration that defendant no.1 is not the adopted son of Lachman Majhi and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that the parties are 'Kandha' by caste and are governed under the provisions of old Hindu Law. The suit property originally belonged to one Lachman Majhi. The same was recorded in his name in the 4th settlement. Lachman died in the year 1980 leaving behind his wife Bhama-plaintiff no.1 and daughter- Pramila Mallik-plaintiff no.2 and son Sarbeswar. Sarbeswar died in the year 1991. The plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit land. After the death of Sarbeswar, the defendants tampered the Tahasil record to grab the property of Lachman. On the application of the plaintiffs, the names of defendants had been deleted from the Tahasil records. The defendants have no semblance of right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. Neither Lachman nor his wife had ever adopted defendant no.1 as their son. They had also not executed any deed of adoption in favour of defendant no.1 and if there is any such document, the same is forged one. The defendant no.1 was recognised and treated as son of his natural father for all intents and purposes. The 5th settlement R.O.R. was wrongly prepared in the name of Jaykrushna Majhi along with the plaintiffs basing on a forged registered deed of adoption, which was created by impersonation. When defendant no.1 failed to succeed in his attempt to tamper the Tahasil records, he had created forged adoption deed on 6.11993 by impersonation. The plaintiffs came to know about the alleged adoption of defendant no.1 during proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. (Crl.Misc.Case No.137 of 97) before the S.D.M., Sonepur, which was initiated by the defendant against the husband of plaintiff no.2 and other co-villagers. The plaintiffs have also denied execution of any unregistered deed of gift by Lachman in favour of Gadan Tandi, father of defendant no.2, in respect of the suit property. The defendant no.2 had filed Objection Case No.1187 of 1999 before the A.S.O., Khari, which was rejected. Thereafter he preferred Settlement Appeal No.19 of 2000, which was also dismissed. Since the defendants started claim over the suit land, they filed the suit seeking the reliefs as mentioned. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff no.1 died.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed separate written statements. The defendant no.1 in his written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit. He admitted that he and the plaintiffs are 'Kandha' by caste and governed by the provisions of old Hindu Law. He does not deny the relationship of the plaintiffs with Lachman. He claims to be the adopted son of Lachman. He admitted that the suit land was recorded in the name of Lachman in the 4th settlement. After death of Lachman, his wife-plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 succeeded to the property. The specific case of defendant no.1 is that since Lachman and his wife were issueless, they adopted defendant no.1 on the day "Baisakha Sukla Dwadasi" in the year 1965. There was a giving and taking ceremony. The said ceremony was performed at the house of Lachman in presence of the caste men, villagers and relatives. By then, he was seven years old. Since the date of adoption, he is being treated as the adopted son of Lachman and his wife by the public at large as well as in all official records. Lachman got him admitted in the school. He sold the land to defendant no.2, being the father guardian of defendant no.1. The plaintiff no.1 had also executed the registered deed of acknowledgement of adoption on 6.12.1992. He, being the adopted son, has right, title, interest and possession over the suit property.