ABDUL AZIZ BHAT Vs. MOHAMMAD IQBAL BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 16/8/2011 passed by learned Munsiff, Shopian, whereby application filed by him seeking amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit against respondents No.1 to 7 seeking a decree of declaration, declaring the adoption deed dtd. 28/4/2006 executed by deceased Salam Bhat in favour of defendant No.1-Mohammad Iqbal, as null and void, ineffective, inoperative and fraudulent so far as rights of the plaintiff are concerned. A further decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is owner in possession of one half of the land left behind by deceased Salam Bhat falling under Khasra Nos.8, 27, 33, 157, 143, 176, 224, 234, 319/2333, 350/233, 293 and 196 in Village Tachloo Shopian, and that the defendants are owners in possession to the extent of one half of the share, has been sought. A decree for partition of the suit property in two equal shares has also been sought.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint is that Salam Bhat, his cousin brother and co-owner, passed away and that he had died unmarried and issueless. It has been submitted in the plaint that deceased Salam Bhat was the owner of the suit land which he had inherited from his father being his only son. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into peaceful possession of the suit property to the extent of share of the deceased and made improvements in it. The plaintiff has gone on to aver in the plaint that, being governed by Muslim Personal Law, he as well as the defendants are entitled to inherit one half share each from the landed property left behind by the deceased, which is required to be partitioned into two equal shares, out of which one half would go to the plaintiff and another half would go to the defendants. It is further averred that the defendants have managed an adoption deed dtd. 28/4/2006, whereunder it is claimed that deceased Salam Bhat has adopted defendant No.1-Mohammad Iqbal. It has been contended that the said adoption deed is a nullity and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred in the plaint that on the basis of said adoption deed, mutation in respect of the property left behind by deceased Salam Bhat stands attested in favour of defendant No.1, which is under challenge by way of separate proceedings. It has been submitted that the plaintiff has repeatedly asked defendant No.1 to treat the impugned adoption deed as null and void and to come forward for partition of the suit property but he has refused to do so.