BHUBNESHWAR MAHTO Vs. KUMARI NAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Second Appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dtd. 3/10/2002 (decree signed on 17/10/2002) passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 41 of 1994 whereby the Judgment and Decree dtd. 16/9/1994 (decree signed on 24/9/1994) passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Deoghar was set aside.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff namely Karmi Devi (original respondent in this appeal)had filed Title Suit No. 17/1986 for a declaration that the registered adoption deed dtd. 31/3/1986 executed by defendant No. 4 (deceased appellant No. 3) Bhukhlal Mahto is illegal, void and inoperative along with the cost of the suit.

(3.) Joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 and separate written statement was filed by minor defendant No. 3 through legal guardian. Defendant has admitted the factum of marriage between plaintiff and defendant No. 4. It is further alleged that since 1980, due to illness of the defendant No. 4 the plaintiff started illicit relationship with one Kartik Mahto. The defendant No. 4 has denied the birth of daughter out of wedlock with the plaintiff rather she was outcome with the illicit relationship between his wife and Kartik Mahto. It is further alleged that with a view to resolve the dispute and differences, they arrived at amicable settlement and Panchayati was held on occasion of Basant Panchami in the year 1982 wherein plaintiff along with her brother Kanti Mahto appeared and with the consent of the plaintiff and her brother, the Panchas decided to dissolve the marriage between plaintiff and defendant No. 4 with immediate effect. It is further alleged that such type of customary mutual divorce outside Court is prevalent in the society of the parties. The mutual divorce as well as decision of the Panchas was reduced into writing in two copies/panchnama and one copy was given to each party but the copy of Panchnama given to defendant No. 4 was damaged with rain water and to some extent it has become illegible. It is further alleged that after dissolution of marriage, plaintiff Karmi Devi remarried with her beloved Kartik Mahto and out of this wedlock, two daughters have been born to her and she is residing at village Gaura since 1982, which is after dissolution of the marriage as is also evident from their voter-list. It is alleged that daughter Numuwa @ Namia born to plaintiff before dissolution of the marriage is an illegitimate child of defendant No. 4. It is further alleged that in the voter-list of village Gaura, plaintiff is named as wife of Kartik Mahto although her paternal village is Jamua. It is also admitted that defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 have executed registered adoption deed dtd. 31/3/1986 and the story of Bhugatbandha Mortgage is palpably false. Defendant No. 4 having no issue, adopted a son after valid dissolution of marriage. Therefore, no consent of the plaintiff was required and this suit is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed.