The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for positive documentary evidence to prove adoption and inheritance rights, emphasizing the significance of documents such as school leaving certificates, ration cards, and identity cards in establishing parentage and entitlement to property.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 15.03.2013 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition of the suit property bearing no. 495, Block-A, Ganesh Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092. The respondent/plaintiff is the son of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1. Appellant no.2/defendant no.2 is the brother of the respondent/plaintiff and appellant no.3/defendant no.3 is the sister of the respondent/plaintiff. The suit property for which partition is sought was the property of Sh. Sauda Ram, the father of the respondent/plaintiff and the husband of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1. Appellants no. 2 and 3/defendants no. 2 and 3 are the other son and daughter of Late Sh. Sauda Ram.

2. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that his father, Sh. Sauda Ram, was the owner of the suit property and the father, Sh. Sauda Ram, died intestate in 1996 leaving behind four legal heirs who were parties to the suit. The respondent/plaintiff therefore sought the decree of partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit property.

3. The appellants/defendants contested the suit and denied that the respondent/plaintiff was the son of Sh. Sauda Ram as it was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff, who was the natural son of Sh. Sauda Ram, was adopted by Sh. Khila Ram the elder brother of Sh. Sauda Ram in the year 1958.

4. The following issues were framed in the suit:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, if so, its legal effect? OPD.

2. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff had been adopted by Sh. Khila Ram in the record of Samvat 2014? if so, its effects. OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is/has been deriving his rights from his natural parents? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of partition? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession? OPP.

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction? OPP.

8. Relief."

5. The parties led evidence and these aspects are recorded in the following portion of the impugned judgment:-

xxx xxx xxx

"In order to prove his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 wherein he has supported his case as mentioned by him in his plaint.

PW2 is Sh. Uma Shankar Sharma, a teacher from Sarvodhaya Bal Vidhayalaya, Mandawali, Delhi-92. He has proved the school certificate of the plaintiff as Ex.PW2/A.

The defendants have examined four witnesses in support of their case.

The defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.DW1/A, wherein she has supported her case as mentioned in the written statement.

DW-2 is Smt. Ram Kali. She is the real sister of the defendant no.1. She has filed her affidavit Ex.DW2/A, wherein she has stated that the plaintiff was adopted by Sh. Khela Ram as Sh. Khela Ram was not having any issue.

DW-3 is Sh. Sita Ram Sharma. He is Purohit by profession. He has filed his affidavit Ex.DW3/A, wherein he has stated that his forefathers were Purohits of Nagar family. His father expired in the year 1985 and since then he is performing the role of Purohit for Nagar family. He also stated that Sh. Khela Ram did not have any child and he adopted the plaintiff.

DW4 is Smt. Shanti who also happens to be a sister of D-1. She has filed affidavit Ex.DW4/A, wherein she has corroborated the version of defendant no. 1 and DW2 Smt. Ram Kali regarding the adoption of the plaintiff by his uncle Sh. Khela Ram."

xxx xxx xxx

6. The trial court has held, and in my opinion rightly so, that the appellants/defendants have failed to prove that the respondent/plaintiff was adopted by Sh. Khila Ram, the elder brother of Sh. Sauda Ram. Admittedly, there is no registered adoption deed. The only document to show the existence of the adoption wa