GYANCHAND PATNI Vs. SUSHIL KR PATNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the common order dated 11.6.87 passed by the learned Additional District Judge III, Manipur dismissing the Judicial Misc. Case No. 248- 86/20-87 instituted by the appellants-plaintiffs by refusing to make absolute the order granting ex-parte interim injunction and allowing the judicial Misc. Case No. 262-86/10-87 instituted by the respondents-defendants vacating the order granting ex-parte interim injunction.

(2.) We have heard at length Mr. A. Nilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs as well as Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents- defendants. We have also considered the; records.

(3.) Admittedly, the parties belong to Khandelwal Saraogi sect of Digambar Jain Community. The suit property belonged tec one Deepchand Patni. He died unmarried on 18.5.86 leaving the plaintiffs, who are his step brothers, and the defendant No. 1 who is his step sister. The defendant No. 2 claim to be the adopted son of the deceased Deepchand and claim the suit property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 assert that the alleged adoption was void in view of provisions in Section 19(iv) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 as the defendant No. 2 was then above 15 years of age and there is no custom or usage applicable to the parties permitting adoption of persons above 15 years of age. They further allege that there was no ceremony of giving and taking, and the alleged adoption deed dated 23.10.85 is a forged document. They, therefore, instituted original suit No. 75-86/26-87 for declaration of their title over the suit property as nearest natural heirs of the deceased, for declaration that the alleged adoption deed is void and also for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 also instituted Judicial Misc. Case No. 248-86/20-87 for ad-interim temporary injunction. The learned Additional District Judge at Imphal granted ex-parte interim injunction. The defendant No. 2 then instituted Judicial Misc. Case No. 262-86/10- 87 for vacating the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge disposed of both the Judicial Misc. Cases by vacating the exparte interim injunction vide the common order dated 11.6.87 impugned in this appeal.