SAHIL Vs. SUDESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31.8.2010, whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to receive the insurance and other benefits on account of death of late Shri Om Parkash son of Shri Kura Ram with further relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 5 from disputing the insurance claim in respect of Shri Om Parkash and further direction to respondent No. 5 to pay the amount of policies, was dismissed. Further challenge has been laid to judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 21.7.2012 whereby plaintiff's appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. Plaintiff filed the instant suit, inter alia, pleading that deceased Om Parkash, who was his adoptive father was having three insurance policies, as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, expired on 21.7.2002 at Ambala Cantt., leaving behind the plaintiff, the only legal heir.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was adopted by deceased Om Parkash in a biradari, as he was unmarried. However, the adoption deed was registered on 12.7.2002 before the registering authority. After the death of Om Parkash, he came to know that respondent-defendants No. 1 to 4 were trying to receive the insurance benefits from respondent No. 5 without any right or authority in this regard and respondent No. 5 was duty bound to give the claim of the aforesaid policies in favour of the appellant only.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 4 were proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court vide order dated 8.5.2003, whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement stating that the simpliciter suit for declaration was not maintainable and the plaintiff-appellant should have filed a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for obtaining the succession certificate if he had any claim. It was further submitted that the appellant was never adopted by deceased Om Parkash and the alleged adoption deed was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The appellant has concealed the true and material facts from the Court and therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. The appellant was not the adopted son of the deceased. The deceased was having three insurance policies and died on 21.7.2002, leaving behind the aforesaid respondent-defendants, as his LRs. In fact Dev Raj, brother of the deceased and husband of respondent No. 3 had died much prior to the death of deceased Om Parkash. After the death of Dev Raj, the deceased used to live with the said respondent-defendants, as he had no source of livelihood till his death. Said defendants kept the deceased with love and affection and due to that, he appointed the said defendants as his nominees in the insurance policies and thus, they were entitled to receive the amount thereof. The adoption deed dated 12.7.2002 was prepared only eight days prior to the death of deceased Om Parkash when he was seriously ill and was taken by Ashok Kumar, the natural father of the appellant, on the pretext of providing medical aid. In good faith, respondent No. 3 sent deceased Om Parkash with him when he was not in sound disposing mind. Taking advantage of his illness, said Ashok Kumar got propounded a false adoption deed in order to grab the property of the deceased. Since the deceased had already adopted respondent No. 2 as his son, he was never interested in adopting the appellant and thus, the said respondents No. 2 and 3 are the legal heirs and nominees of the deceased. The appellant was living with his natural father since his birth and the present suit has been filed only to grab the property of the deceased. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed.