Dinesh Mehta, J.

The present group of appeals arise out of five separate judgments dated 20.08.1992 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in five civil suits involving common question of facts and law, questioning the identical sale deeds executed by defendant No. 2 - Smt. Anand Kumari.

2. All the five appeals are being decided conjointly vide this common order. However, the facts relating to Civil First Appeal No. 23 of 1993 (Swaroop Singh v. Subhash Singh), emanating from the judgment and decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 104 of 1987 (Old No. 103 of 1978) are being taken into consideration, as a lead case.

3. The facts apropos this appeal are that one Khuman Singh sold a part of open land 'Badi', vide registered sale deed dated 24.08.1996 to his wife - Smt. Anand Kumari. Said Khuman Singh died on 02.01.1972, where after his wife Smt. Anand Kumari adopted Subhash Singh, the plaintiff - respondent herein as per Hindu customs and rituals. Anand Kumari - owner of the land in 1 question thereafter sold a part of the said land to defendant No. 1 - Raj Kumari and executed a registered sale deed on 25.05.1976. The plaintiff Subhash Singh - the adopted son, instituted a suit for declaration and possession, inter alia, contending that his natural father Narendra Singh Ranawat had given him in adoption to Sh. Khuman Singh Ranawat, on whose 2 behalf, the defendant No. 2 - Smt. Anand Kumari had observed the requisite ceremony as per the customs prevalent. The plaintiff stated that apart from observing customary formalities on 14.1.1972, the defendant No. 2 - Smt. Anand Kumari executed an adoption deed, ratifying the adoption, which was on behalf of herself and her husband Shri Khuman Singh Ranawat. It has also been asserted in the plaint that at the time of adoption, with a view to protect the plaintiffs interest, who was a minor at the relevant time, the defendant No. 2 had also executed an agreement (on the same date viz. 14.1.1972), in favour of his natural father Narendra Singh, inter alia, assuring that all the properties belonging to her and her husband would not be sold and that the plaintiff would be the sole owner/successor for the same.

4. Laying challenge to the sale deed dated 25.05.1976, the plaintiff contended that the contentious sale of plot No. 225 carved out of House No. 26/560, situated in Sardarpura, Udaipur by the defendant No. 2 - Smt. Anand Kumari was illegal and unauthorized in teeth of the agreement dated 14.1.1972; for which it was sought to be declared illegal and without authority.

5. The plaintiffs entire case was edifice on the agreement dated 14.1.1972, purportedly executed by his adoptive mother Smt. Anand Kumari, at the time of his adoption. The plaintiff contended that the sale in question to defendant No. 1 was illegal and liable to be declared as such, because the plaintiff having been adopted by defendant No. 2 and her husband Khuman Singh, was the sole owner of the properties, belonging to them. It was thus prayed that the sale deed dated 26.5.1976 for the properties described in para No. 4 of the plaint be declared null and void and ineffective against his rights.

6. In response to the suit so filed by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 - Smt. Raj Kumari filed a written statement and while disputing the factum of execution of the agreement dated 14.1.1972, pleaded her ignorance about the same. It was in the alternative contended that as she was not given any intimation or notice of such agreement, it was inoperative qua her. It was also asserted that she was a bonafide purchaser, with whom the defendant No. 2 had entered into an agreement of sale way back on 7.2.1968, even prior to the adoption of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 asserted that as the plaintiff; had not issued any public notice of the alleged agreement dated 14.1.1972, he cannot take any advantage of the same against the interests of defendant No. 1 a bonafide pu