ORDER :- This is a defendant's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1994 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 252/1993 by which the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

2. The plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar had filed a suit for possession, declaration, injunction, recovery of mesne profits and other items with the averments that property bearing AMC No. 28/805 situated at Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer was owned and possessed by Shri Dayaram who died issueless in the year 1957 and after the death of Dayaram his wife Jai Devi inherited his property who also expired issueless in the month of May, 1970, therefore Chameli Devi, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) inherited the said property in accordance to Hindu Succession Act being the nearest surviving member after the death of Smt. Jai Devi. It was further the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Chameli Devi took in adoption to the plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar on 2-5-1974 and a registered adoption deed was also got executed by her; that Smt. Chameli Devi died on 23-4-1975. thereafter Sanjeev Kumar (plaintiff) became the sole owner of the property left by Chameli Devi. It was also stated that Deen Dayal was the step brother oflate Smt. Jai Devi and after her death he continued collecting rent on behalf of Chameli Devi and also used to reside with her but the defendant Deen Dayal was in no way heir of Jai Devi or Chameli Devi. It was further averred that Chameli Devi served a notice on 20-5-1974 to the defendant Deen Dayal to stop collecting the rent, thereafter Deen Dayal with mala fide intentions lodged a First Information Report against Jai Prakash and Chameli Devi and in that criminal case Jai Prakash and Chameli Devi were arrested but after release on bail Chameli Devi was kept in wrongful confinement by the defendant Deen Dayal and she was not permitted to meet even to her adopted son. It has further been averred that after the death of Chameli Devi, the plaintiff being adopted son has become the sole owner of her property, therefore he is entitled for possession of immovable property as well as cash money and ornaments.

3. The defendant Deen Dayal in his written statement denied the factum of plaintiffs adoption and averred that plaintiff was never adopted by Smt. Chameli Devi and forged adoption deed was prepared by Jai Prakash, father of the plaintiff. It was further the case of the defendant that he was adopted son of late Shri Dayaram, that Smt. Chameli Devi was not having any relation with the property oflate Shri Dayaram and the defendant Deen Dayal is the sole owner ofthe disputed property after the death of Dayaram and his wife Jai Devi and this fact has been admitted also by Chameli Devi in writing and she also relinquished her right and title, if any in the said property. It was also averred that Smt, Chameli Devi had adopted Snehlata and therefore. Snehlata is also a necessary party to the present suit.

4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed following issues:-

(Vernacular matter omitted... . Ed.)

5. The plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar apart from• himself as PW. 2 examined Jai Prakash as P.W. 1 and got exhibited three documents Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-3. the defendant Deen Dayal apart' from himself produced A. R. Kulkarni. Vidhyanath and Mukandram in his evidence and got exhibited as many as 29 documents.

6. The learned trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration that the plaintiff is adopted son of Smt. Chameli Devi and also for possession of the house but dismissed the suit in regard to the claim of cash money and jewellery. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 7-71994. the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is not maintainable because earlier

Click Here to Read the rest of this document