BADRI Vs. GOKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31/3/1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur whereby, he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15/1/1981 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Dausa whereby, he decreed the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1-Gokul for declaration and injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant No.1-Nathu (who died during pendency of the suit and was substituted by his daughter) and his younger brother Ghasi had no son. As they wanted to adopt a son, Nathu and Ghasi therefore persuaded to Sheonarayan, natural father of the plaintiff, who was closely related to them, to give his son Gokul in their adoption. Sheonarayan agreed to give his son Gokul in their adoption on the condition that both the brothers would give all their property to him after their death and that they would not take any other person in their adoption and that they would not further part with the property to any one. Both the brothers accepted the proposal. Plaintiff-Gokul was taken in adoption by Nathu and Ghasi in presence of relatives and other responsible persons of the village and panchas of nearby villages. His adoption took place according to Hindu custom and rites on 10th Jeth Badi of Samwat (Hindu Calendar year) 2025. Nathu and defendant No.2-Smt.Bachchi, widow of Ghasi, declared the plaintiff as their son. Immediately thereafter, adoption-deed was prepared by Kajodmal Patwari. Ghasi put signature on that deed and Nathu put the thumb impression. Panchas also made their signatures as witness to the Will. Adoption-deed was read over to Sheonarayan, natural father of plaintiff Gokul. Adoption-deed was filed along with the plaint. Nathu and Ghasi both executed a Will ten days after adoption on 24/3/1969. This Will was registered. In the Will, he bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff left the house of his natural father and started living with Nathu, Ghasi and defendant No.2-Bachchi as their son. Nathu and his brother Ghasi arranged his marriage. Defendant No.2-Bachchi also participated in his marriage.

(3.) DEFENDANTS -appellants filed written statement denying all the allegations in plaint. It was pleaded in the additional plea that neither defendant No.1 took the plaintiff in adoption nor any written document was prepared, as alleged. Written document, if any, produced by the plaintiff, is fabricated one, which was never executed in the lifetime of Ghasi. The plaintiff thus had no right or interest in the property of defendant No.1 and his younger brother. Defendant No.1 has taken defendant No.3 in adoption in accordance with the prevalent customs. Defendant No.3 was adopted as son of defendant No.1.