NARAYAN Vs. RADHABALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16/7/2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred] to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 4/2011, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15/11/2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 475 of 2005.

(2.) THE short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit before the Trial Court, seeking declaration to the effect that the respondent/defendant was not the son of Late Shri Ghisi Lal, but was the son of Shri Gangabux. The appellant had also sought prayer that the entries made in the revenue record in favour of the respondent/defendant in respect of the suit lands, be declared null and void, the same having been made illegally in collusion with the Revenue Officers. The appellant had also sought the permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the lands in question. As per the case of the appellant, one Shri Sojiram had two sons Ganeshnarayan and Sonath. Ganeshnarayan had two sons Vijay Lal and Kanhaiyalal, and the appellant/plaintiff Narayan was the son of Vijay Lal, and Kanhaiyalal that is uncle of the appellant had died unmarried. Sonath had one son named Ghisilal, who died issueless in the year 1952. Hence, according to the appellant/plaintiff, all the lands in question which belonged to his father Vijay Lal and his uncle Kanhaiyalal and Ghisilal, were inherited by him alone, however, the respondent/defendant Radhaballabh, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Ghisilal had got his name entered in the revenue record illegally, in collusion with the officers of the Revenue Department. Hence, the suit was filed. The respondent/defendant had resisted the suit by filing the written -statement contending inter -alia that his name was muted in the revenue record in the year 1963 -64, he being the adopted son of Ghisilal and that the appellant was aware about the said fact since then. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable being time barred and that the Trial Court also had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) IT is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the appellant that the Trial Court while holding that the Court did not have the jurisdiction, should have returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 of CPC, and the Appellate Court also while reversing the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the jurisdiction has committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal. He further submitted that there was no evidences to show that the respondent was legally adopted by late Shri Ghisilal, and therefore the respondent had no right to get his name muted in the revenue record. The learned senior counsel Mr. Agarwal taking the Court to the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court submitted that both the Courts have committed serious error of law by recording perverse findings with regard to the alleged adoption of the respondent by Shri Ghisilal. However, the learned counsel Mr. Akhil Simlote for the respondent has submitted that the suit of the appellant was grossly time barred, and that considering the prayers made in the plaint, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, amongst other grounds.