RAMESHWAR LAL SHARMA Vs. DANKHA DEVI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1981 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in appeal No.179/76 reversing the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under:

(2.) The property in dispute bearing numbers 712 and 713 situated at Station Road, Nasirabad originally belonged to Shri Onkar Lal Sharma, who used to reside therein. After his death, the said property was transferred by his widow Smt. Dakhan Devi in favour of her nephew Kishan Sahay (respondent No. 2) under a registered deed dated 17.9.1971. On 10.1.1973, the appellant filed a suit in the learned trial Court with the allegations that during his life time Shri Onkar Lal Sharma had adopted him as a son in accordance with the Hindu rites on 6.3.1945 and that after the death of Shri Onkar Lal Sharma, all the ceremonies in connection with the death were performed by him and also that Smt. Dakhan Devi had been treating him as her adopted son. It was alleged that Smt. Dakhan Devi had thus no title in the property in dispute and could not transfer it in favour of her nephew. He sought a declaration in this regard and also prayed for concellation of the -deed under which the property was transferred in favour of Kishan Sahay (respondent No. 2). The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement it was admitted that the property in dispute was transferred by Smt. Dakhan Devi in favour of Kishan Sahay-respondent No. 2 under the above said deed, but it was denied that her husband had adopted the appellant - plaintiff as a son and that she had treated him as such. The right of the plaintiff-appellant in the property in dispute was thus denied and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant had been adopted as a son by Shri Onkar Lal Sharma and his widow had been treating him as her adopted son and, as such, the property in dispute could not be conveyed by her in favour of Kishan Sahay respondent No.2 and, consequently, a decree for declaration and cancellation of the deed was passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the respondent-Kishan Sahay and Smt.Dakhan Devi, both of whom had been impleaded as defendants in the suit. The appeal filed against the decree was heard by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, who reversed the findings of the learned trial court and came to the conclusion that there was no adoption and, as such, the appellant had acquired no right in the property in dispute and could not ask for any declaration or any relief in respect thereof. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-plaintiff has approached this court by filling this second appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.