Adoption of a person who has completed the age of 15 years is invalid under Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and there is no estoppel against a statute.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on 30th March, 2012 by the 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 2097 of 2007 at the instance of the defendant/respondent no. 3.

2. In connection with this appeal, the appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in this appeal.

3. We will deal with the said application while considering the merit of this appeal.

4. Let us now consider the merit of this appeal in the facts of the instant case.

5. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to Gokul Chand Goswami & Atul Krishna Goswami who were the shebaits of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and other deities located at 41, Mahendra Goswami Lane. It is also an admitted position that Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) became the ultimate trustee from the branch of Gokul Chand Goswami. It is also an admitted position that Chhabi Goswami and Madhabi Mukherjee were the last shebaits from the branch of Atul Krishna Goswami. It is also an admitted position that after the death of Tara Sundari Devi, Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) started acting as shebait from the branch of Gokul Chand Goswami as the adopted son of Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) along with the two other admitted shebaits, viz., Chhabi Goswami and Madhabi Mukherjee who started realising rent jointly from the tenants of the debottar estate.

6. Problem started when Chhabi Goswami took steps for repairing the debottar property. Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) obstructed Chhabi Goswami from effecting repair of the debottar property. It is only thereafter, the instant suit was filed by Chhabi Goswami challenging the validity of the adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami). It is alleged by her that Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was not validly adopted by Tara Sundari Debi. As such, he cannot act as a shebait of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew & other family deities. Chhabi Goswami claimed that upon the death of the other co-trustee viz., Madhabi Mukherjee, she became the absolute trustee of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and other family deities. She thus prayed for injunction against the defendants for restraining the defendants from acting as shebaits. Incidentally it may be mentioned herein that Madhabi Mukherjee, the other co-trustee, was also joined as defendant in the said suit. She was issue less. She died during the pendency of the suit.

7. The defendant no. 3/appellant herein contested the said suit by filing written statement claiming that he was legally and validly adopted by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) and as such, on her death he became one of the trustees of the said debottar estate. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. Several issues were framed in the said suit. Parties led their respective evidence in support of their respective claims. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on contest against the defendants but without costs. The plaintiff was declared as absolute owner of the suit property. It was declared that the defendants have no right to interfere with the management of the debottar estate of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and others wherein the plaintiff is the only shebait. It was also declared that the defendants have no right to act as shebait. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the affairs of the debottar estate and from disturbing the plaintiff in the administration of the affairs of the debottar estate.

9. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

10. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the said suit in the facts of the instant case.

11. As a matter of fact, though several issues were raised and/or decided by the learned Trial Judge, but we were addressed on only two issues i.e. the issue Nos. 3 and 4 which relate to the validity of the adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) by