BAJRANG LAL Vs. NANDU BAI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 3/11/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.04/2009, whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 7/2/2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ranganj Mandi, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.22/2000.

(2.) The short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the respondents-plaintiffs had filed the suit before the Trial Court, seeking declaration to the effect that the registered adoption deed dated 22/4/1999 allegedly executed in favour of the appellant-defendant was null and void, and for injunction. It was alleged in the suit interalia that the plaintiff No.1 was an illiterate and widow lady, and the plaintiff No.2 was her daughter. After the death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1, the defendant along with his father had come to the plaintiffs and advised that the names of the plaintiffs were to be recorded in the khatedari, and therefore they had to go to the Tehsil. It was further alleged that the defendant by defrauding the plaintiffs had got the adoption deed registered in his favour from the plaintiff No.1 on 22/4/1999, which fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 12/5/1999, when they had received the notice from the SDO Court. According to the respondents-plaintiffs, the said adoption deed having been got executed by committing fraud and even otherwise the same was in violation of the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the said deed was illegal, null and void. The said suit was resisted by the appellant-defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made against him and further contending interalia that he was adopted by the deceased Madan Lal, the husband of the plaintiff No.1 when the defendant was five years old. According to him, he had also tied the Pagri in presence of all the relatives at the time of death ceremony of the deceased Madan Lal, and hence he was the adopted son of the plaintiff No.1 and the deceased Madan Lal, for which the adoption deed was got registered on 22/4/1999. The Trial Court, after framing the issues and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs, against which the respondents had preferred the appeal. The Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree, has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Govind Choudhary for the appellant that the Trial Court had rightly not believed the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that the registered sale deed was got executed by committing fraud, and that the Appellate Court without any evidence had reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. He further submitted that the appellant-defendant was adopted by the deceased Madan Lal during his lifetime, when the appellant was five years old and since then he was treated as the son of the plaintiff No.1 and the said Madan Lal, and that it was only after the death of Madan Lal, the adoption deed was got registered to avoid any further complications. He also submitted that as per the custom prevailing in their community, there was no need to get the adoption deed registered and it was sufficient that the appellant was treated as the adopted son of the plaintiff No.1.