SWAROOP SINGH Vs. SUBHASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present group of appeals arise out of five separate judgments dated 20.08.1992 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in five civil suits involving common question of facts and law, questioning the identical sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 Smt. Anand Kumari.

(2.) All the five appeals are being decided conjointly vide this common order. However, the facts relating to Civil First Appeal No.23/1993 (Swaroop Singh Vs. Subhash Singh), emanating from the judgment and decree passed in Civil Original Suit No.104/1987 (Old No.103/1978) are being taken into consideration, as a lead case.

(3.) The facts apropos this appeal are that one Khuman Singh sold a part of open land 'Badi', vide registered sale deed dated 24.08.1996 to his wife Smt. Anand Kumari. Said Khuman Singh died on 02.01.1972, whereafter his wife Smt. Anand Kumari adopted Subhash Singh, the plaintiff respondent herein as per Hindu customs and rituals. Anand Kumari owner of the land in question thereafter sold a part of the said land to defendant No.1 Raj Kumari and executed a registered sale deed on 25.05.1976. The plaintiff Subhash Singh the adopted son, instituted a suit for declaration and possession, inter alia, contending that his natural father Narendra Singh Ranawat had given him in adoption to Sh. Khuman Singh Ranawat, on whose behalf, the defendant No.2 Smt. Anand Kumari had observed the requisite ceremony as per the customs prevalent. The plaintiff stated that apart from observing customary formalities on 14.1.1972, the defendant No.2 Smt. Anand Kumari executed an adoption deed, ratifying the adoption, which was on behalf of herself and her husband Shri Khuman Singh Ranawat. It has also been asserted in the plaint that at the time of adoption, with a view to protect the plaintiff's interest, who was a minor at the relevant time, the defendant No.2 had also executed an agreement (on the same date viz. 14.1.1972), in favour of his natural father Narendra Singh, inter alia, assuring that all the properties belonging to her and her husband would not be sold and that the plaintiff would be the sole owner / successor for the same.