A.L. Bdhri, J. - (1.) SMT . Maya Devi Defendant has filed this appeal against judgment and decree dated January 20, 1983, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated November 2, 1982, was set aside. The trial Court had dismissed the suit whereas the lower appellate Court decreed the suit filed by Surjit Singh, adopted son of Bhola Singh, for declaration that he was owner to the extent of 3/4th share in the land in dispute and the remaining land belonged to Maya Devi Defendant, i.e. l/4th share. Maya Devi was further injuncted restraining her from alienating in any manner 3/4th share of the land in dispute.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the estate of Bhola Singh. Maya Devi Appellant! is the daughter of Bhola Singh, whereas Surjit Singh Plaintiff claims to be his adopted son. Bhola Singh owned and possessed l/6th share in the agricultural land as described in para 1 of the plaint, situated in village Nabha. After consolidation 41 Kanals 18 Marias of land fell to his share which is described in para 2 of the plaint, which is the subject matter of the suit. Bhola Singh died on May 27, 1970. Bhola Singh adopted Surjit Singh -Plaintiff as a son on May 29, 1953 by means of an adoption deed, which was duly registered. Bhola Singh is alleged to have executed a fake and sham gift deed of the suit land in favour of Smt. Maya Devi on December 3, 1953. This gift deed was challenged as invalid on the ground inter alia that possession under the gift was not delivered to the donee. The gift was not made with an intention to transfer right, title and interest to the donee. The gift was never accepted by the donee -Defendant. Bhola Singh had no right or authority to gift after the Plaintiff had been adopted as his son. During his life -time Bhola Singh treated the suit land as exclusively owned by him. Bhola Singh and the parties are governed by Hindu law as prevalent in Northern India. Bhola Singh constituted a coparcenary joint Hindu family property. The land in the hands of Bhola Singh was ancestral qua the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had thus interest in the suit land equal to the share of Bhola Singh. The gift could not be made without the consent of the Plaintiff. After the death of Bhola Singh, Surjit Singh Plaintiff claim to be sole heir and legal representative of Bhola Singh and thus owner of the suit land. Since Maya Devi Defendant was threatening to dispose of the disputed land, the suit was filed by Surjit Singh for declaration of ownership of the suit land and for injunction restraining Maya Devi from alienating the same in any manner. Smt. Maya Devi contested the suit. Some preliminary objections were taken that the suit for merely injunction was not maintainable as the Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The Plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. The Plaintiff got another suit filed through his wife Kiran Sharma against Maya Devi, Defendant, on the basis of some agreement of sale which was dismissed. On merits the allegations of the Plaintiff were generally denied. After making the gift in favour of Maya Devi Defendant, Bhola Singh divested himself of all rights. After December 3,1953, the date of the gift, Bhola Singh was never in possession of the suit land. It was admitted that Bhola Singh adopted the Plaintiff but it was asserted that the same was not a valid adoption. The Plaintiff could not legally succeed to the estate of Bhola Singh. After the adoption the land was mortgaged by the Defendant in favour of Sita Devi wife of Prem Raj and the mortgagee is in possession of the suit land. The Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. The gift was stated to be validly made by Bhola Singh in favour of Maya Devi Possession under the gift was passed to Maya Devi who accepted the gift. It was denied that the gift was a sham or forged transaction. The suit was barred by time. In the replication filed! by the Plaintiff the stand taken up in the plaint was reiterated while denying the allegations of the Defendant. It is pertinent to mention here that with regard to adoption it was stated that he was validly adopted by Bhola Singh who brought him up as his son and also performed his marriage. Maya Devi also treated him as her brother. The Defendant was estopped and barred by her act and conduct from challenging the adoption.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: (1) Whether the Plaintiff was validly adopted by Pt. Bhola Singh deceased ? OPP (2) Whether Pt. Bhola Singh executed fake and sham gift deed and the same is void for the reasons given in para 5 ? OP (3) Whether the Plaintiff has succeeded to the estate of Bhola Singh ? OPP (4) Whether the suit is within time ? OPP (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act ? OPD (6) Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD (7) Whether the Plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit ? OPD . (8) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction ? OPD (9) Relief.;