Unsuccessful in her pursuit for cancellation of adoption deed in favour of the first respondent and partition of property, a biological daughter of late Shivram Tak, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that appellant-plaintiff laid a civil suit for partition of the immoveable property, injunction and for declaration of adoption deed dated 16.06.1992 as nullity. By the said adoption deed, late Shivram Tak and his wife Shanti Devi adopted first respondent as their son. At the threshold, the suit was filed on 21.12.1998 wherein Smt.Shanti Devi, mother of the appellant was also arrayed as defendant and the first respondent herein in this appeal Prithvi Singh was arrayed as defendant No.2.

In the plaint, the appellant has averred that Smt.Shanti Devi is wife of late Shivram Tak and respondent Prithvi Singh is brother of Smt.Shanti Devi. The entire property owned by late Shivram Tak for which partition is sought was mentioned in the plaint and description of the property in vernacular as made in the plaint reads as under:-

^^d`f”k Hkwfe %&

[kljk uEcj 07 jdck 14 ch?kk] cksjkukM+k

[kljk uEcj 08 jdck 10 ch?kk] cksjkukM+k

[kljk uEcj 111 jdck 3 ch?kk] ukjukM+h

[kljk uEcj 110@1 jdck 52 ch?kk ukjukM+h

vpy laaifr%&

¼1½ tks/kiqj ‘kgjh {ks= esa fuEufyf[kr edkukr vk;s gq;s gSa%&

¼v½ e.Mksj jksM ij edku ftlds iM+ksl fuEu izdkj ls gSa%&

¼1½ mRrj esa %& yks<k lkgc dh gosyhA

¼2½ nf{k.k esa %& fcjkbZ egkjkt dk LFkku

¼3½ iwjc esa %& jsyos ykbu

¼4½ if’pe esa %& vke lM+dA

¼c½ Hkw[k.M Mh&2 ikoVk ch&2 jksM+] tks/kiqj esa vk;k gqvk gSaa ftlds iMkSl fuEu izdkj gSa%&

¼1½ mRrj esa %& oknhuh dk caxyk

¼2½ nf{k.k esa %& gfj;k<k.kk Bkdj dh gosyhA

¼3½ iwjc esa %& pkfyl fQV dh lM+d

¼4½ if’pe esa %& fuEcsMk Bkdj lkgc dh gosyhA

¼l½ pkSikluh jksM+ ij Hkou o nqdkusa tks LoxhZ; f’kojke th us izfroknh la[;k nks ds uke ij [kjhn dh] ftlus iMkSl fuEu izdkj ls gSa %&

¼1½ mRrj esa %& xyh 10 fQV dh vkxs edkuA

¼2½ nf{k.k esa %& pkSikluh jksM+

¼3½ iwjc esa %& vke lM+dA

¼4½ if’pe esa %& Hk.Mkjh lkgc dk IyksVA**

The appellant made a specific averment in the plaint that the entire property was purchased by late Shivram Tak at villages Boranada and Narnadi out of the income of the joint family and as such the appellant plaintiff and her mother are only two legal representatives to inherit the same. For other land property also, it is urged in the plaint that the same was purchased by late Shivram Tak out of income of joint family and, therefore, the appellant and her mother are owners of the said property after his death. In substance, the appellant has emphasized that late Shivram Tak is survived by only two legal heirs and, therefore, both of them are entitled for equal share in the property.

Then switching on to dilating on some other facts, the appellant has pleaded that after the death of late Shivram Tak, the appellant, her mother and respondent Prithvi Singh mutually agreed to partition the entire property to avoid future cause of acrimony or litigation. The modalities of oral partition was also highlighted in the plaint with the specific assertion that as Smt.Shanti Devi and respondent Prithvi Singh are living together, both of them shall enjoy the said property and Prithvi Singh shall continue to serve Smt.Shanti Devi till she is surviving as she had already attained 88 years of age.

After narrating all these facts, the appellant-plaintiff straight away diverted the pleadings to question the registered adoption deed dated 16.06.1992. In order to assail adoption deed, the appellant has averred in the plaint that the said adoption deed was executed by late Shivram Tak on certain emotional considerations being impulsive and later on, he realised as per the legal advice that wife’s brother cannot be adopted by an individual. As per the version of the appellant, adoption of brother-in-law looser is legally prohibited. Besides the ground of afo