VASTU TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. Vs. LADU BHONRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and all three appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) These three appeals have been filed by the respondents defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Sec. 96 CPC of Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.43/2012 titled as "Ladu V/s Ram Lal & Ors.", whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') for declaring the adoption deed as null and void, permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale deed dtd. 4/4/2005 which was presented on 5/3/2005 and cancelling the sale deed dtd. 30/6/2005 has been decreed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of adoption deed as null and void and cancellation of registered sale deed dtd. 4/4/2005 presented on 5/3/2005 and cancellation of sale deed dtd. 30/6/2005. The said suit was amended. The plaintiff sought various reliefs and also sought the relief that the sale deed dtd. 30/6/2005 executed by Ramlal in favour of Vastu Township Private Limited be declared as illegal and void and also that the sale deed dtd. 4/4/2005 presented on 5/3/2005 executed by legal heirs of Ram Chandra in favour of M/s Tiyara Construction Private Limited be also declared as illegal and void. The plaintiff in his suit mentioned that the disputed land originally belonged to Bhoriya @ Bhairu. After his death, land vested in Ladu(the plaintiff), Ram Chandra and Mohriya (all sons of Bhoriya @ Bhairu). Later on Mohriya became monk and he died in the year 1992. Plaintiff came to know that after the death of Bhoriya, by way of forged document(s) Ramlal wanted to get mutated the land of Mohriya in his name. He also created forged document(s) i.e. adoption deed dtd. 10/2/1991. At that time, civil death of Mohriya had occurred. So, the said document(s) could not be executed. It was also stated that as per Sec. 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a person, who is above the age of 15 years, cannot be adopted. At the time of execution of adoption deed, Ramlal was 30 years old. So, he can not be taken in adoption. So, the document(s) dtd. 10/2/1991 was void and illegal. The suit was said to be within limitation. So, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed.