GOKHUL RAI Vs. JANKI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff, whose suit for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Posan Rai, and for recovery of possession of his properties, has been dismissed by Mr. Sachidanand, Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Muzaffarpur, by his judgment dated 26-2-47.

(2.) A short genealogical table in order to understand the relationship and the case of the parties may be set out below:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_487_AIR(PAT)_1955Html1.htm</FRM> Posan Rai, whose widow is Janki Kuer defendant 1 had a son Bilat Rai who predeceased him, leaving behind his widow Radha Kuer, defendant 2. Plaintiffs case is this: He is the own nephew of Posan Rai and as, the latter had no son, he adopted the plaintiff as 'Kartaputra' by a registered document dated 26-4-40 and put him in possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint. Shortly afterwords in May, 1940, Posan Rai died, and the plaintiff performed his 'Shradh' ceremonies. Before the plaintiff could file a petition in the Land Registration Department, for mutation of his name, defendant 1 the widow of Posan Rai, at the instigation of plaintiff's enemies put in a petition for mutation of her own name in the Land Registration Department. Plaintiff appeared before the Land Registration Court, and objected to the mutation of the name of defendant 1 in place of Posan Rai in respect of his properties on the ground that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Posan Rai, and as such he was entitled to his properties, hut his objections were disallowed on 9-12-40, and the defendant 1 was mutated in place of Posan Rai Thereafter the defendants, viz., Janki Kuer, defendant 1 widow of Posan Rai, and Radha Kuer, defendant 2 the daughter-in-law of Posan Rai, both dispossessed the plaintiff, and therefore, he was compelled to bring the suit, out of which the present appeal arises.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 constested the suit. Their defence was that Posan Rai was ill for a long time before his death, and during his last days he had lost all power of understanding, and accordingly he was sent to Pupri for treatment, and, if there taking advantage of his serious illness and loss of power of understanding, the plaintiff got any document executed by Posan Rai at Pupri, it cannot confer any right on plaintiff Defendants, therefore, denied plaintiff's adoption and the execution of the deed of adoption by Posan Rai.