- (1.) THIS is a second appeal which has arisen out of a suit wherein the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the defendant No. 1 Sushil Chandra was not the adopted son of Raghunath Prasad. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. Now the defendant No. 1 has come in this second appeal and in support and opposition thereof, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts are these:
(2.) A pedigree has been set out in the trial Court's judgment and from the same it will be seen that the plaintiffs based their claim as daughter or daughters' issues of one Ram Sahai. It is alleged that Ram Sahai's three sons, namely, Bhoop Ram, Phool Chand and Raghunath Prasad, all remained bachelors in their lives and after the death of Bhoop Ram and Phool Chand, the remaining son Raghunath Prasad became the sole owner in possession of the property left by Ram Sahai Raghunath Prasad died on 3rd October, 1963. The plaintiff No. 1 claims succession on the basis of being the real sister of Raghunath Prasad and the plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 claimed succession on the basis of being sons of the other sisters of Raghunath Prasad. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property left by Raghunath Prasad but when they were seeking to get their names mutated in the record in their favour, the defendant No. 2, Krishna Behari, made objection that his son Sushil Chandra alias Sallu the defendant No. 1 had been adopted by Raghunath Prasad and hence the plaintiffs' names could not be mutated. The plaintiffs questioned the factum of adoption and denied the validity of the same. They alleged that the defendant No. 2 Krishna Behari was the Lekhpal in the village and be used to live in a portion of the house of Raghunath Prasad as a licensee and he practised undue influence and fraud on Raghunath Prasad with a view to get some writing purporting to show the adoption of Krishna Behari's son by Raghunath Prasad. The defendants contested the claim. They denied that the plaintiffs were related to Raghunath Prasad in the manner as suggested in the plaint and it was alleged that they bore no relationship and were not heirs or entitled to succeed to Raghunath Prasad. The defendants affirmed that Raghunath Prasad had taken in adoption the defendant No. 1, Sushil Chandra alias Sallu, and the said adoption was not brought about by undue influence or fraud as alleged in the plaint. It was not invalid for the reasons alleged by the plaintiffs. There was a registered adoption deed dated 4th February, 1960 and the said document was not bad or vitiated on the grounds alleged in the plaint. It was claimed that the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the property left by Raghunath Prasad. Certain other pleas were taken which it is not necessary to notice for the purpose of this appeal. The trial court framed the necessary issues and tried the suit. The adoption of defendant No. 1 by Raghunath Prasad was held to be established and the suit was, therefore, dismissed. In the lower appellate Court, the contention was that the defendants had failed to prove the factum of adoption and the trial Court's verdict was incorrect. The lower appellate Court accepted the said contention and allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant-appellant had invited my attention to S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which lays down as under; "Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved." He has further placed reliance on Bhola Chaube v. Man Matun Chaube (1964 All LJ 749) : (AIR 1965 All 258) where Mr. Justice M. H. Beg (as he then was) laid down as under: "Where it has been proved that the admission was made in a registered deed formally executed by a party with an endorsement showing that the executant was fully aware of the contents of the deed executed with due deliberation and full understanding, the value of the admission is considerable unless it is explained satisfactorily.";