SUNDARI MARANDI Vs. MAHARANI HEMBRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are appellants and this appeal is against the judgment of reversal. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) THE plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 30/83 for declaration that adoption of first defendant never took place and the deed of adoption is ineffective document and the same is liable to be cancelled. Plaintiffs case was that she and defendants are residents of the same village and are by caste Marandi. Lakhan Marandi had a son Bhatu Marandi, who has two daughters Mukhi Marandi and sundari Marandi. Mukhi Marandi was married to gopal Hembram in Gharjamai form. Their daughter Maharani Hembram was also married with Sital Tudu in Gharjamai form. Maharani Hembram is plaintiff in this case. Sundari Marandi, the second daughter, was not married in Gharjamai form. The plaintiff's further case was that after the death of Bhatu Marandi, his two daughters jointly inherited the landed property and came in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff alleged to have come to know about the illegal adoption, by which defendants-second set have adopted defendant-first set on 8-3-1983. The plaintiffs case is that no adoption had taken place, no religious ceremony was performed and there was no giving and taking ceremony. It was also alleged that a false document of adoption was created to claim the suit property. The defendants, inter alia, stated that Sundari marandi was married in "gharjamai" form though she had got no issue but only an adopted son. The defendants' further case is that adoption took place in January, 1983 in presence of village Pradhan and other villagers in accordance with Santhal custom. The trial Court dismissed the suit disbelieving the case of the plaintiff and accepting the case of the defendants regarding adoption. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff-respondent preferred appeal before the District Judge, Dumka being Title Appeal No. 25/86. The appellate court, after re-appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the adoption never took place as alleged by the defendants and that the defendants-appellants failed to prove their case that defendant-first set was given in adoption.

(3.) I have heard, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of the respondent.