- (1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31/3/1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur whereby, he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15/1/1981 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Dausa whereby, he decreed the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1-Gokul for declaration and injunction.
(2.) THE plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant No.1-Nathu (who died during pendency of the suit and was substituted by his daughter) and his younger brother Ghasi had no son. As they wanted to adopt a son, Nathu and Ghasi therefore persuaded to Sheonarayan, natural father of the plaintiff, who was closely related to them, to give his son Gokul in their adoption. Sheonarayan agreed to give his son Gokul in their adoption on the condition that both the brothers would give all their property to him after their death and that they would not take any other person in their adoption and that they would not further part with the property to any one. Both the brothers accepted the proposal. Plaintiff-Gokul was taken in adoption by Nathu and Ghasi in presence of relatives and other responsible persons of the village and panchas of nearby villages. His adoption took place according to Hindu custom and rites on 10th Jeth Badi of Samwat (Hindu Calendar year) 2025. Nathu and defendant No.2-Smt.Bachchi, widow of Ghasi, declared the plaintiff as their son. Immediately thereafter, adoption-deed was prepared by Kajodmal Patwari. Ghasi put signature on that deed and Nathu put the thumb impression. Panchas also made their signatures as witness to the Will. Adoption-deed was read over to Sheonarayan, natural father of plaintiff Gokul. Adoption-deed was filed along with the plaint. Nathu and Ghasi both executed a Will ten days after adoption on 24/3/1969. This Will was registered. In the Will, he bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff left the house of his natural father and started living with Nathu, Ghasi and defendant No.2-Bachchi as their son. Nathu and his brother Ghasi arranged his marriage. Defendant No.2-Bachchi also participated in his marriage. It was further pleaded in the plaint that Ghasi expired in 2006. All his last rites were performed by the plaintiff according to hindu customs. Pagadi ceremony was also done in his name accepting plaintiff as the son. Plaintiff became owner of the entire properties of Ghasi. One and a half months before filing the suit, defendant No.2-Bachchi had some dispute with natural father and mother of plaintiff-Gokul. Enemies of the plaintiff mislead defendants No.1 and 2, who thereupon started ill-treating the plaintiff and his wife. Under the influence of these unscrupulous elements, defendants No.1 and 2 got another Will executed in favour of the defendant No.3-Badri with a view to getting the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 cancelled. The plaintiff submitted an objection before the registering authority. The Will was impounded and was sent to Collector Stamps. An adoption-deed was prepared on 3/3/1970 with the stipulation that defendant No.1 had already taken defendant No.3 in adoption fifteen years ago. It was got registered with Sub-Registrar Lalsot on 7/3/1970. Prayer was therefore made in the suit that the Will dated 18/2/1970 and adoption-deed dated 3/3/1970 be set-aside and declaration be made that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit entire property of the defendants after the death of Ghasi, husband of defendant No.2-Smt.Bachchi, on the strength of Will/family arrangement dated 24/3/1969 and it be further declared that defendants No.1 and 2 had no right to transfer the property in favour of any other person.
(3.) DEFENDANTS -appellants filed written statement denying all the allegations in plaint. It was pleaded in the additional plea that neither defendant No.1 took the plaintiff in adoption nor any written document was prepared, as alleged. Written document, if any, produced by the plaintiff, is fabricated one, which was never executed in the lifetime of Ghasi. The plaintiff thus had no right or interest in the property of defendant No.1 and his younger brother. Defendant No.1 has taken defendant No.3 in adoption in accordance with the prevalent customs. Defendant No.3 was adopted as son of defendant No.1.;