Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff Santoki Bai W/o Dulam Ram, by caste Brahmin, resident of Rohida, Dist. Sirohi under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dtd. 18.6.1986 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Sirohi dismissing the original civil suit No. 225/1984 (16/84)- Santoki Bai vs. Lal Shankar and Ors. which was filed by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of registered gift-deed dtd. 25.5.1977 Ex. 1 executed by the plaintiff herself in favour of Smt. Vidhya Devi W/o Sh. Lal Shankar, who was sister's daughter (Bhanji) of the plaintiff, giving away her residential house belonging to the plaintiff situated at village Rohida, Dist. Sirohi, description and neighbourhood of which is given in registered gift-deed Ex. 1 to donee Smt. Vidhya Devi.

2. The plaintiff Santoki Bai filed the present suit for cancellation of said gift-deed on 15.4.1984 after seven years and the plaintiff claimed in the suit that the said gift-deed dtd. 25.5.1977 was got executed by Lal Shankar, husband of Vidhya Devi misrepresenting to the plaintiff that the said document was for adoption of Atul, natural son of Lal Shankar and Vidhya Devi by Santoki Devi as they were serving the plaintiff Santoki Bai in her old age and even her husband who was suffering from paralysis for last 16 to 18 years and therefore, the said gift deserves to be cancelled.

3. The defendant Vidhya Devi and Lal Shankar filed written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following six issues in the said suit including the relief:

^^1- vk;k oknh us c['kh'kukek dks izfroknh }kjk xksn i= crk;k tkus ij rgjhj o rdehy fd;k\

2- vk;k nkok vUnj fe;kn gS\

3- vk;k oknh dks fnukad 14-2-83 dks Kkr gqvk fd nLrkost xksn i= ugha cfYd c['kh'kukek gS\

4- vk;k bl vnkyr dks nkos dk Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha gS\

5- vk;k c['kh'kukek jn~n fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\

6- nknjlh\**

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 Santoki Bai, PW.2 Mota Ram, PW.3 Kundan Lal, PW.4 Bhika Lal, PW.5 Chota Lal, PW.6 Arjun Singh, PW.7 Sita Ram, PW.8 Jora Ram, PW.9 Kamla Devi and PW.10 Poosa Ram were examined besides documentary evidence, namely, Ex. 1 registered gift-deed, Ex. 2 letter dtd. 14.2.1983 written by Jagdish elder son of Vidhyadevi to the plaintiff and Ex. 3 AD receipt, whereas on behalf of the respondents-defendants, DW.1 Lal Shankar, DW. 2 Vidhya Devi, DW.3 Kaku Bhai, DW. 4 Trilok Chand and DW. 5 Govindram Bhatt were examined and documentary evidence Ex. D/1 copy of notice, Ex. D/2 reply thereto were produced.

5. The learned trial Court while deciding issue No. 1 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. However, deciding issue No. 2 and 5 against the plaintiff, ultimately dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present first appeal before this Court under Section 96 C.P.C. on 18.10.1986, whereas the defendants filed cross-objections with respect to issue No. 1 decided against them in this Court on 9.3.1987.

6. During the course of pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff Santoki Bai expired on 19.11.1988 and one Jitendra Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar Purohit claiming to be adoptive son of deceased Santoki Bai, was taken on record as legal representative of plaintiff Santoki Bai who is now pursuing the present first appeal before this Court. The said Jitendra Kumar is the son of Mahendra Kumar, son-in-law of Smt. Kamla Bai, a niece of Santoki Bai. The said Mahendra Kumar produced one adoption-deed dtd. 22.10.1985 purportedly Santoki Bai adopting Jitendra Kumar, who was minor at that point of time and on the basis of same, vide order dtd. 13.3.1989, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the said Jitendra Kumar was taken on record as legal representative of Santoki Bai. The said Jitendra Kumar is the son of Mahendra Kumar and Harsha Devi. An application to recall this order was filed by the defendants, but it was rejected by the same Bench on 17.10.1990. However, the said document, the alleged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document