The suit was primarily for the declaration of adoption and, as such, was triable by a civil court due to the absence of any objection to the jurisdiction before the trial court.

1. - In this second appeal, the only point raised by the appellant is that the suit was mainly for declaration of adoption and the claim of possession etc., were ancillary and secondary to the main relief and, therefore the first appellate court committed serious error of law in holding that the suit was triable by the courts of Revenue.

2. The second submission which is more important than first one is that no objection was raised to the jurisdiction before the trial court and no issue was framed in this respect and, therefore, the first appellate court was not justified in taking up of this objection for the first time in appeal, after recording of the entire evidence, the case has been decided by the trial court.

3. I enquired from Shri Jain, appearing for the defendant respondents, whether any objection to the jurisdiction on the basis of the plea that the suit was triable by the Courts of Revenue.was taken before the trial court. On a thorough check up of the written statement and the issues framed, so also the judgment of the trial court, I find that no such objection was ever taken directly or, indirectly. Both the parties led evidence and obtained judgment from the trial court.

4. In view of the above, Shri Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents could not show that at any stage, before the trial court, any objection of this nature was taken in any manner, whatsoever. Obviously, this was not taken, because the suit was primarily for the declaration of the adoption and, as such was triable by a civil court.

5. In view of the above, I think, it is a futile exercise to enter into the main grounds because the suit was for declaration of adoption as valid and claim of the possession etc. was ancillary.

6. Prima facie, all the rights flow from adoption and, therefore, the submission of the appellant that the declaration about the adoption was the principal relief cannot be rightly brushed aside.

7. I am also of the opinion that since no objection was taken at any stage before the trial court and both the parties led the evidence and obtained a judgment and, that too, by the civil court, the first appellate court should not have entertained any such objection more so, because no failure of justice or prejudice has been shown.

8. Consequently, this appeal is accepted. Since the first appellate court has not decided the appeal on merits,the first appellate court would now consider the first appeal filed before the Additional District Judge, Alwar on merits in view of the observations made above.

9. In the net result, this appeal is allowed as indicated above without any order as to costa. The parties are agreed to appear before the first appellate court, i. e. Additional District Judge, Alwar on January 10, 1985.Appeal allowed.

*******