Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 27.02.2015 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in MCA 66/2006, whereby the said regular first appeal has been dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, namely the learned Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara in Suit No.175/2006 dated 03.11.2006 has been affirmed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants by claiming himself to be the adopted son of late Sh. Murari Lal vide adoption deed dated 15.06.1975 - stated to have been executed by Sh. Murari Lal and his wife Smt. Shanti Devi before the village Panchayat. He claimed that since 15.06.1975, he was residing with Sh. Murari Lal at property No.B-1/4, Krishna Nagar, Delhi – the suit property. He claimed that Sh. Murari Lal was first married to the mother of Sh.Virender Kumar, and after her death, he married Smt. Shanti Devi, who had no issues. He claimed to be a relative of Smt. Shanti Devi. He claimed that Smt. Shanti Devi was the owner of the suit property. After the death of Sh. Murari Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi, he claimed that he along with Sh.Virender Kumar became co-owners/ joint owners of the suit property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Defendant No.1 is the wife of Sh. Virender Kumar and the defendants No.2 & 3 are the daughters of Sh. Virender Kumar. The plaintiff claimed that whereabouts of Sh.Virender Kumar were not known for the last 40 years. He claimed that in January 1990, the defendants quarreled with him and he started living in a rented premises. Despite his asking, the defendants refused to partition the suit property. He claimed that on 15.03.2005, he again asked the defendants to partition the suit property but they flatly refused. Consequently, he filed the suit claiming half share in the suit property. He sought partition and injunctive reliefs.

3. The defendants contested the suit. They denied the alleged adoption of the plaintiff by late Sh. Murari Lal. The defendants stated that the adoption deed was false and manufactured by the plaintiff after he had graduated in Law. The signatures of Sh. Murari Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi on the adoption deed were denied. The defendants claimed that Sh. Murari Lal had executed a registered Will in favour of defendant No.1. She also claimed that after the death of Smt. Shanti Devi, Succession Certificate was obtained in case No.945/1987 by defendant No.1 from the Court of Sh.L.D. Malik, Sub-Judge in respect of the movable estate left by Smt. Shanti Devi to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendants stated that the plaintiff’s biological parents had eight children and they were living in very poor conditions. Looking to the same, Sh. Murari Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi had brought the plaintiff to Delhi with a view to give him good food and education. The defendants also denied that the suit property was owned by Smt. Shanti Devi. They stated that the same was purchased by Sh. Murari Lal in his father’s name, and after the demise of his father, Sh. Murari Lal became the owner of the same. It was further stated that the plaintiff developed the habit of drinking and started creating nuisance in the family. Late Sh. Murari Lal warned the plaintiff several times and also reported the matter to his father Sh. Ram Narayan Dixit and handed over the custody of the plaintiff to his natural father. Since then the plaintiff had no concern with the defendants or the suit property.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues. Issue No.3 pertained to the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, which, in turn, depended on the issue whether the plaintiff had been adopted by late Sh. Murari Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi by the adoption deed set up by the plaintiff. Other issues were also framed.

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He also produced Smt. Sumati Sethia as PW-2 and one Anil Kapoor as PW-3.