ABDUL MAJID Vs. DODALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, namely, the appellant herein, was the plaintiff in the civil original suit No. 9/1976 (1/86). In the suit, the appellant sought declaration to the effect that the registered deed dated November 26, 1975, executed by defendant No. 1, Abdul Razak, whereby the registered adoption deed dated July 27, 1973, Exhibit P1, was cancelled, be declared null and void, inoperative and ineffectual so for as the appellant was concerned. He further sought declaration to the effect that he continues to be adopted son of defendant No. 1 and entitled to half share of his estate in terms of the adoption deed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that Abdul Razak, defendant No. 1 in the suit, had two daughters, namely, Mst. Sakeena and Mst. Dodally (defendant No. 2). Mst. Sakeena was married to Abdul Majid, appellant, as a Khana- nishin daughter. According to the appellant, he remained in the house of defendant No. 1 as Khana-damad and fulfilled all the needs of life of the executant and his wife. Unfortunately, Mst. Sakeena appellants wife and defendant No. 1s daughter died two years after the marriage and defendant No. 1, being an old man and weak in health and having no scope of having a male issue, adopted the appellant to be his adopted son vide registered adoption deed dated July 27, 1973, Exhibit P1. Further accofding to the appellant, he was adopted because defendant No. 1 was unable to manage the domestic affairs and he wanted the appellant to manage his domestic affairs and, on his death, to perform his last rites, besides perpetuating the name of the family. In the adoption deed dated 27th July, 1973, it was specifically mentioned, that the property of defendant No. 1, to the extent of its half, shall vest in the appellant and the remaining half shall vest in Mst. Dodally, defendant No. 2, namely, the respondent herein. According to the plaintiff-appellant, in the adoption deed, it was mentioned that Abdul Razak, defendant No. 1, shall have no right to cancel the adoption deed. It was also the case of the appellant that, because of the influence of the defendant No. 2, i.e. the respondent herein, defendant No. 1 cancelled the adoption deed 27th July, 1973. He pleaded that the cancellation of the adoption deed was illegal, null and void and not binding on his right in property which had already come to be vested in him.

(3.) Upon notice of the suit, the defendants, in their joint written-statement, admitted that the appellant was married to Mst. Sakeena, but they denied that Mst. Sakeena was married as Khana-nishin daughter or that appellant was brought as Khana-damad. It was also averred that the adoption deed was a fake and fictitious document and that the same was got executed from defendant No. 1 while he was lying sick. Defendants further stated that the appellant did not render any service to defendant No. 1 and so he cancelled the adoption deed vide cancellation deed dated 26th September, 1975. In regard to the adoption deed, defendants further stated that the parties to the suit are governed by their personal law, i.e., Muslim law with regard to inheritance and that, there being no custom prevailing in the family where son-in-law could be adopted as adopted son after the death of his wife by the father-in-law, therefore, the adoption deed was invalid, inoperative and in-effectual against them.