BHIKARI PADHI Vs. ABHEDAN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondent nos.1 to 7 instituted the suit for partition. Case of the plaintiffs was that Kalicharan Padhi was the common ancestor of the parties. The suit properties originally belonged to him. Kalicharan died in June, 1958 leaving behind his widow Mathura, widow of his pre-deceased son, Purandar and three daughters, namely, Achala, Kumudini and Sandhyabali, plaintiff no.7. Achala died leaving behind her six sons and daughters, plaintiff nos.1 to 6, and her husband, defendant no.3. Kumudini died leaving behind her husband, defendant no.4 and two sons, defendant nos.1 and Purandar died at the age of 19 years leaving behind his widow Padmalata and parents. Padmalata died issueless. Mathura died in July, 1984. The plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit properties, but the defendants maintained a stony like silence. Defendant no.1 managed to mutate his name alone in respect of the suit lands describing himself as the son of Purandar on the basis of a registered deed of acknowledgement of adoption. Purandar and his wife Padmalata or Mathura had not adopted defendant no.1 at any point of time. There was no giving and taking ceremony. The deed acknowledging adoption was a forged one. The same was not executed by Padmalata or Mathura. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. He has not disputed the relationship of the parties with Kalicharan. He is the natural son of Kumudini, one of the daughters of Kalicharan. The specific case of the defendant no.1 is that he was adopted by Purandar, when he was two years of age. There was giving and taking ceremony. On 25.08.1975, Padmalata executed a registered deed acknowledging adoption in his favour. Mathura gave her consent to the execution of the deed. He is in possession of the suit properties continuously, uninterruptedly and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession.