The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, apparent perversity, patent illegality, or manifest injustice.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Gupta, J. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') against the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan, (Head Quarter at Sanganer) in Civil Misc. Appeal no. 22/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') has been partly allowed modifying the order dated 23.4.2019 passed by the Trial Court and both the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the site and record over disputed 1/5th portion of 1/3rd share of late Ananda in the suit property.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants alongwith an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The Trial Court vide its order dated 23.4.2019 allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs and directed both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to site and record over the suit property, as described in para no. 17 of the T.I. application.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed a Civil Misc. Appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 27.11.2019 partly allowed the appeal modifying the order dated 23.4.2019 passed by the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that both the parties are natural successors and legal representatives of late Shri Kana. Late Sh. Kana was having three children, namely Dhanna, Ananda and Murli. After the death of Kana, his sons namely Dhanna, Ananda and Murli were recorded as owners and tenants of revenue land situated at village Jaisinghpura @ Jotdawala, Tehsil-Sanganer, Distt.- Jaipur and, each of them are entitled to have 1/3 share therein. It has further been submitted that Dhanna died in the year of 1992 leaving behind nine children. Ananda was married to Smt. Suja Devi and out of their wedlock, 4 daughters were born namely, Smt. Para Devi, Smt. Kalli Devi, Smt. Prem Devi and Smt. Kamli Devi. Smt. Suja Devi died on 19.04.1998 and Ananda died on 28.11.1998. During their life time, Ananda and Suja Devi adopted Suja Ram S/o Dhanna in the year of 1962. After adoption, Suja Ram started living with his adoptive parents and his upbringing and marriage was solemnized by his adoptive parents. It was further averred that adoption deed was also executed for the adoption of Sh. Suja Ram but same was destroyed in fire. It was also averred that due to love and affection, respondent Prabhu also used to come and stay with Anand and Ananda was also having affection with Prabhu and treated him like his own son. Due to lack of legal knowledge, Ananda also adopted Prabhu but neither any ceremony was solemnized nor any adoption deed was executed. He further submits that Prabhu was also shown as adoptive son of Ananda in record but as per law, a male person can not adopt two sons in his life and due to this reason Prabhu cannot be treated as adoptive son of late Sh. Ananda. Suja Ram expired on 21.4.2001. In various documents, name of late Suja Ram was shown as son of late Ananda. It is further submitted that due to price escalation and greed, the daughters of late Ananda tried to get the mutation opened in their name and alleged that late Suja Ram is not the adoptive son of late Ananda.

5. Learned counsel further submits that an amendment was made to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1986 by way of Amendment Act, 2005, which provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before 20.12.2004. In this view of the matter, before this amendment if parental property had been vested in any male member of Hindu family, then the same cannot be challenged. He furth