SADHU RAM AND ORS Vs. GOBIND AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 19.9.2007 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 8.5.2009.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration along with consequential relief of injunction and pleaded that one Smt. Sunehari widow of Bholar was the owner of the suit property and after her death the appellants had inherited the same. They pleaded that the suit land is now in possession of Jug Lal (now deceased and represented by respondents No. 1 to 5) for the last about 40 years as tenant on Batai. Earlier he was tenant under Smt. Sunehari and after her death he had become owner of the suit property along with Raghu Nath (appellant No. 6). They further pleaded that despite this his tenancy rights over the suit land had not been affected and the possession had never been surrendered. They further pleaded that the respondents have got entered mutation in favour of Gobind, respondent No. 1 on the basis of fabricated adoption deed No. 179 dated 9.6.1998 which they pleaded to be null and void. They also pleaded that when respondent No. 1 was taken in adoption he was more than 15 years of age and consequently he could not have been taken in adoption and such an adoption is hit by the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 1contested the suit and pleaded that Smt. Sunehari was owner of the suit land and as per the revenue record one Ram Singh, who had died long back, had been shown in cultivating possession of the suit land. Appellant No. 6 Raghu Nath in collusion and connivance with the revenue officials had got the khasra girdawri changed in his name in the year 2001. It was further pleaded that in the eventuality of the Court coming to the conclusion that Raghu Nath is in possession of the suit land then respondent No. 1 is entitled to a decree of possession. The succession of the appellants to the estate of Smt. Sunehari was denied and adoption in favour of Gobind was pleaded to be a valid act. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1 used to reside with Smt.Sunehari and he was given and taken in adoption on 1.1.1998 regarding which an adoption deed was executed on 9.6.1998. It was further pleaded by respondent No. 1 that the appellants have pleaded tenancy rights over the suit land but they never paid Batai to Smt. Sunehari and therefore they reserve the right to file proceedings for recovery of rent from the appellants. Custom was also pleaded. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 1 was born on 4.8.1983 and was less than 15 years on the date of adoption. A counter claim was also filed with a prayer that mutation of the suit property be got sanctioned in favour of the respondent No. 1 and mutations sanctioned in favour of Chandu and Jug Lal are liable to be set aside.