KIRAN BALA GORAIN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GORAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff, who is a minor and under the guardianship of his adoptive mother Sarala Bala Gorain, instituted a title suit for a declaration that the three sale deeds executed by his adoptive mother aforesaid on 16-4-1931, 5-5-1938 and 28-2-1942, fully described in the schedule of the plaint, were not for legal necessity and thus not binding on the plaintiff. A further declaration that the plaintiff's adoption by Sarala Bala Gorain was valid was also prayed for, and on these declarations, a decree for recovery of possession with mesne profits in respect of the land covered by the three sale deeds was sought for. In order to appreciate the questions raised in this appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts of the case.

(2.) The husband of Sarala Bala, namely, Gulam Chandra Gorain died issueless in 1926-27, leaving behind only the widow. Gulam Chandra Gorain had left behind considerable landed properties and on his death his widow Sarala Bala came in possession of the same. The widow thereafter sold away by means of three sale deeds the aforesaid extensive areas. Under the first document dated 16-4-1931, (Ext. 4) 5 bighas and odd was sold for a sum of Rs. 599/-; under the second document dated 5-5-1938 (Ext. 3) an area of 2 bighas 18 kathas and odd was sold for Rs. 291/- and under the third document dated 28-2-1942, (Ext. 5) 7 bighas and odd was said for a sum of Rs. 49 only. After the enforcement of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (Act 78 of 1956), Sarala Bala adopted the plaintiff, who was originally the son of one Bhagyadhar Gorain, according to the Shastric rites. A registered deed of adoption (Ext. 1/Gha) was also executed and registered on 3-4-1960 to evidence this adoption. Only a few years after the adoption, the suit was filed for the reliefs as stated above,

(3.) The suit was contested by the purchasers and the main defence set up by the defendants was that the adoption of the plaintiff was illegal and inoperative as Sarala Bala had no authority from her husband Gulam Chandra Go-rain to adopt a son and. therefore, the plaintiff had no locus stand! to institute the suit and to challenge the alienations made by Sarala Bala. It was also pleaded that the sale deeds in question were all genuine and executed for legal necessity.