SRIRAM JAIN Vs. MANJUBAI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original plaintiff haribilas Jain had filed Title Suit No. 37/80 of 1983/1991 in the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Kantabanji praying for declaration that original defendant No. 1 Binod kumar Jain was not his adopted son and that the alleged adoption deed in that respect was invalid, void and not binding on him. He further prayed to declare that the defendants had no right, title or interest in his properties besides praying for permanently restraining them from entering into or occupying the house belonging to him. It appears that all the parties are members of the same family and the adoptive father and the adopted son have expired in the meanwhile. During pendency of the suit the original plaintiff Haribilas, the adoptive father, having died his brother Sriram Jain who claimed to be his legal representative was substituted. The original defendant No. 1 Binod Kumar jain, the adopted son, also died during pendency of the suit and he was substituted by his widow and children being the legal representatives.

(2.) THE pleadings of the parties having been discussed in extenso in the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, this Court refrains from going into details of the same. In brief, one Maman chand was the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons, namely, Sardar singh, Haribilas Jain (original plaintiff) and sriram Jain. Sardar Singh had three sons out of whom Mailal was one. Mailal had three sons and three daughters, Binod being the eldest. Haribilas had no progeny of his own. Binod (defendant No. 1) claimed to have been adopted by Haribilas. The latter however denied such claim of adoption. According to plaintiff, taking advantage of his weak health, Mailal brought his son binod (defendant No. l) and left him in his house to look after him. Binod was of unsound mind and nqt capable of being adopted as he was a major by that time. He denied the recitals of the alleged deed of adoption dated 6-2-1981. The cause of action to file the suit arose when Binod and his wife defendant No. 2 forcibly and by assaulting Haribilas entered into his house on 26-6-1983. In the written statement filed by the defendants they denied all the plaint allegations. According to them Haribilas had adopted Binod when he was only eleven years' old and in acknowledgment of that he had executed a deed on 6-2-1981 and that defendant No. 1 had remained with his adoptive father Haribilas all through thereafter. He got married and stayed in the same house. With such averments they pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as twelve issues for decision in the suit. The plaintiff got four witnesses examined and executed ten documents in support of his case. The defendants got four witnesses and also exhibited several documents. The trial Court after discussing the evidence in extenso decreed the suit and declared that defendant No. 1 Binod was not the adopted son of plaintiff haribilas; and that the alleged deed acknowledging adoption - Ext. 2 was invalid and not binding on Haribilas. The said decree was based on the following findings :-