The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the requirements of valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and its influence on the court's decision.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned coun- sel for the three applicants who had filed their respective interlocutory applications dated 17.8.1993, 26.7.1996 and 12.11.1997, respectively, for their substi- tution in place of the sole appellant Kali Prasad who has, admittedly, died on 22.5.1993.

2. Also heard learned counsel for respondent no. 1, who contests the afore- said interlocutory applications and submits that all the aforesaid interlocutory applica- tions are frivolous and illegal and have to be rejected as none of the applicants are the heirs of the sole appellant, nor can they be held to be a tenant of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

3. Interlocutory application dated 26.7.1996 (at Flag M) has been filed by one Parwati Devi claiming to be the sister of the sole appellant Kali Prasad. It is also stated that the wife of the deceased Kali Prasad as well as his daughter, namely, Shanti Devi predeceased him and the applicant is the sole heir of the aforesaid deceased appellant and hence she may be substituted in his place. It is not in dispute that immediately after filing of the said interlocutory application, the said applicant Parwati Devi died on 15.11.1996 itself, whereafter none of her heirs filed any petition. In the said circumstances, the interlocutory application for substitution dated 26.7.1996 filed by said Parwati Devi has become infructuous apart from being time-barred. Accordingly, the said interlocutory application is dismissed.

4. Another interlocutory application dated 12.11.1997 (at Flag-R) has been filed by respondent no. 2 Ram Chandra Prasad, who was the son-in-law of the sole appellant Kali Prasad, for being transposed as appellant in his place claiming that his wife, namely, Shanti Devi, who was the only issue of the deceased Kali Prasad, had died issueless in the year 1991. It is further submitted that abovenamed Parwati Devi, sister of Kali Prasad (orginal appellant) executed a registered deed of gift in his favour with respect to her other properties and in those circumstances he had been substituted in place of Parwati Devi in another Partition Suit No. 97 of 1992 pending before the learned 3rd Subordinate Judge, Gaya. Neither the deed of gift has been produced in this court nor even the date of the said gift has been mentioned either in the interlocutory application or in the order passed in the partition suit annexed to this interlocutory application and even the relationship of the applicant with the donor has been wrongly mentioned. It is also an admitted fact that the said applicant- respondent no. 2, namely, Ram Chandra Prasad has already died and hence this interlocutory application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Earlier an interlocutory application was filed within statutory period of limita- tion on 17.8.1993 (at Flag Y) on behalf of one Dhiraj Kumar Verma alias Shyam Babu claiming himself to be the adopted son of Shanti Devi, who was the only issue of the deceased Kali Prasad and hence ac- cording to him he was the only heir and legal representative of the sole appellant Kali Prasad as the daughter and son-in- law of the said sole appellant had already died earlier. It is submitted on behalf of the said applicant that the sole appellant Kali Prasad had only one issue Shanti Devi, who was married to Ram Chandra Prasad, but they had no issue and hence they adopted applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma as their son at the age of five according to Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. It is further submitted on behalf of the said applicant that the applicants mother Shanti Devi predeceased the sole appellant and her husband also had died and hence the entire right, title and interest of the sole appellant have devolved upon this applicant. It is also submitted on his behalf that the said Kali Prasad had admitted in a docu- ment that applicant Dhiraj Kumar Verma was his adopted grandson.

6. The requireme