JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2017 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 92A/2010, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The suit was filed by one Smt. Surinder Kour for Declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the so-called Godnama executed in favor of defendant no. 1 and the WILL executed by the parents of the plaintiff in favor of defendant No. 1 as null and void. Further prayer was made to declare sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 as null and void and possession was also claimed for.

2. The brief facts of the case are that defendant No. 1 Rajendra Singh is biological son of Smt. Surinder Kour, who is the plaintiff. The mother of the plaintiff was Ram Pyari, who died on 03.06.2003 and father Sant Singh died on 02.07.2005. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the sole daughter of Sant Singh and Ram Pyari. It was further contended that even after her marriage, she used to visit her parents to look after them and the grandchildren also used to visit there and also prosecuted their studies there. The plaintiff stated that her elder son namely Rajendra Singh (Defendant No. 1) was kept at her father’s place for upbringing him and for studies. The things were at rest but the dispute started in July, 2007 wherein defendant No. 1 told plaintiff that after death of Sant Singh and Ram Pyari, all the properties left behind by them are recorded in name of Sant Singh and he is the sole and exclusive owner of the said property. Having come to know such fact, the plaintiff enquired into the revenue records, wherein plaintiff alleges that it was then discovered on the basis of forged adoption deed (Godnama) and forged WILL, the entire property of Sant Singh and Ram Pyari were mutated in the name of defendant No. 1. Having known the fact, the plaintiff stated that she being mother neither given his consent for adoption of his son Rajendra Singh and nor any rituals were performed for adoption. She further states that the adoption deed i.e. Godnama do not bear her signature, thereby it will not confer any right on the defendant No. 1, to claim to be son of Sant Singh and Ram Pyari, thereby to claim entire property of them.

3. Plaintiff further pleaded that the subsequent WILL does not disclose the fact about such adoption and the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive legal heir and in order to deprive her legitimate right, the forged WILL was prepared by her own son, which would not confer any right or title in favour of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff further referred to certain Revenue cases to plead that exclusively the name of Defendant No. 1 was got recorded in the revenue records for which the reports were also made to the police. The plaintiff further states that the property which is situated at village Baikunthpur, bearing Khasra No. 213 admeasuring 1.263 Hectares have been sold to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by registered sale deed dated 27.05.2006 and the lands situated at village Kouhakunda, bearing Khasra No. 39 admeasuring 0.085 hectares has been sold to defendant No. 6 by sale deed dated 17.10.2007. The plaintiff further asserted that since the adoption deed and the WILL is forged, therefore, by subsequent sale of the property in favour of Defendants 2 to 6, they would not get any title over the said property. Consequently, the pleading was made that the said sale deed be declared null and void. Further the possession of the suit property was also claimed by the plaintiff.

4. Per contra, defendant No. 1, who is the main contestant stated that in the year 1970 while the defendant was about 3 months old, according to the mutual consent, defendant No. 1 was given in adoption to Sant Singh and Ram Pyari who are