HASAN, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the plaintiff (appellants) which was decreed by the trial Court for cancellation of adoption of Veer Singh by Ramlal (defendant No. 1) which was reversed by the first appellate court dismissing the plaintiffs suit, itself. Factual Matrix:
(2.) SMT. Sukhli (Plaintiff No. 1) has married to Harsahay. Harsahay is said to have died four years prior to the filing of the present suit. Thereafter, she is said to have been residing with Ramlal (defendant No. 1) as his wife, after performing village custom and rites. According to her, Ramlal (defendant No. 1) with an oblique motive, adopted Veer Singh as his son from Hardevaram (defendant No. 3) on 4. 9. 70 under a deed of adoption having been manipulated by defendant Nos. 2 & 3. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have admitted that the defendant No. 1 had got adoption deed registered but, their assertion was that in fact, Hardevaram (defendant No. 3) never given his son Veer Singh (defendant no. 2) in adoption nor Ramlal (defendant No. 1) adopted Veer Singh as his son; and further that Veer Singh was aged 19 years and married person; so, his adoption was void ab initio because of the reasons also that no consent was taken by Ramlal from Smt. Sukhli being his wife. On the above averments and grounds, the plaintiffs by filing the present suit, sought a decree for cancellation of the adoption of Veer Singh holding it to be illegal. On behalf of the defendants, in joint written statement, denying the fact of plaintiff No. l's residing as wife to defendant No. l in his house after performing village customs & rites, it has been averred that the adoption of Veer Singh by Ramlal took place in accordance with their customary rites and that, since plaintiff No. 1 was not the wife of Ramlal, there was no necessity or essential under any law to take prior consent of Smt. Sukhli, inasmuch as Veer Singh was aged 14 years and not 19 years. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1 vk;k izfroknh o gjnsok izfroknh oknh la[;k 2 jkepun ds lxs pkpk rk gsa oknh 2 vk;k oknh la[;k 1 dk izfroknh jkeyky ds lkfk xkao ds jleh fjokt ds vuqlkj ?kjokyk gqvka bldk okn ij D;k izhkko gsa oknh 3 vk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 uas izfroknh la- 2 dks tkfr ds jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj xksn fy;k & izfroknh 4 vk;k izfroknh ua- xksn ukeas dh jftlvh ds le; 19 o"kz dk Fkk rfkk okn ij D;k izhkko & izfroknh 5 lgk;rk
(3.) AFTER recording the evidence led by both the parties and their arguments were heard, the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit cancelling the adoption in question. Against which, the respondent Veer Singh and Ramlal preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, who allowing their appeal set aside the judgment & decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit for cancellation of the adoption in question. Hence this second appeal on the following substantial question of law formulated by this Court admitting this appeal for consideration: " Whether the finding of the lower appellate court in reversal of the finding of the trial court to the effect that Mr. Veer Singh had been verbally adopted by Ramlal, is perverse?" The first appellate court in order to decide first appeal, discussed the evidence on record and the trial court's findings only on two issues-second and third issues framed by the trial Court. The first appellate court decided issue No. 2 against the plaintiff-appellants on the grounds that, admittedly, Smt. Sukhli was married wife of Harsahai who had been in government service and after his death, family pension was accorded in favour of Smt. Sukhli and that pension has regularly been received by her after submission of a declaration to the effect that she had not been married rather she was unmarried after the death of her husband Har Sahay because, she had not performed any second marriage. Such a finding has been arrived by the lower appellate court basing it on admissible evidence on record including copies of declarations and certificate in support of the declaration, itself, having been made before receipt of the family pension accorded to the plaintiff No. 1, which have been led in evidence by the defendant- respondent and admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant before the lower court, itself. The declaration & certificate were held to be admission of Smt. Sukhli herself, because she herself made declaration and issued certificate before getting family pension that she had been unmarried and did not perform any second marriage, and in this manner, she derived benefit out of declaration & certificate of non-performance of second marriage, and she continued to draw family pension on those declarations which have not been denied being given/ made by her. In view of the clarificatory admissions wrung out the declarations & certifications, in my view also, the lower appellate court rightly held Smt. Sukhli having no relationship with Ramlal as his wife, and that 'gharbasa' (nata marriage)as alleged/claimed by Smt. Sukhli could not rightly be held to be true fact. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants urged that the admission of documents by their counsel can never be termed as admissions having been made by the plaintiff, herself. Such an argument is bizarre and barren of force and I am not inclined to accept it in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is nothing on record to either rebut such a thing or deny the fact of admission having been made by their counsel or deny the fact of execution of the declaration and/or certificate issued in support of it, or deny the receipt of family pension on the basis of the said declaration and the certificate, treating Smt. Sukhli herself as widow of Har Sahay and having conducted no second marriage after death of Har Sahay. These documents having been allowed to be taken on record after hearing both the parties under order dated 5. 11. 1980 by the lower appellate court, are certainly in the form of admissions of the plaintiff herself and clearly shows that she admitted herself to be widow of Har Sahay and never stated herself to be wife of Ramlal even after filing of the present suit, besides she admitted herself having conducted no second marriage. In view of these clarificatory admissions, wrung out above, her case or plea that she conducted/performed 'gharvasha' (nata marriage) by residing with Ramlal as his wife after performing village customary rites, clearly falsifies her whole case, and that being so, the edifice of her case, itself, crumbles down. If she claims to be wife of Ramlal, then I fail to understand as to why she had shown herself to be wife of late Shri Harsahay while making declaration and issuing certificate to that effect so as to get family pension, and why did she not show herself to be wife of Ramlal. Thus, by virtue of her own admission, she herself crumbled down the edifice of her whole case. ;