The legal principle established is that a person in lawful possession of a property, especially as an adopted son, cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.2/2021 by Additional District Judge, Nenwa, District Bundi, whereby plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been allowed and appellants- defendants have been restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in question and not to interfere in his possession nor to sale the property in question to any other person.

2. Counsel for appellants-defendants has vehemently argued that learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2010 and Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error and perversity in passing the decree for permanent injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff and against appellants-defendants. Counsel for appellants has argued that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and he could not have instituted civil suit against his adopted father during his lifetime. Counsel for appellants submits that suit property was self-acquired property of Mukut Bihari and he has executed a will in favour of Hanuman who is son of brother of Mukut Bihari. Counsel for appellants submits that on the basis of will dated 6.6.2006 executed by Mukut Bihari in favour of Hanuman, Hanuman is the owner of suit property and decree for permanent injunction has been passed against appellants including Hanuman is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

3. Heard. Considered.

4. It appears from record that the instant appeal arises out of simpliciter suit for permanent injunction instituted by respondent- plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff came out with a case that he is adopted son of Mukut Bihari who executed registered adoption deed dated 16.11.1995 in his favour and plaintiff is residing with his adopted father Mukut Bihari in the house in question since during his lifetime. Plaintiff instituted the present suit making an allegation that defendants No.2 to 5 (who are present appellants) are inclined to dispossess the plaintiff as well as his adopted father (defendant No.1) from the house in question and are inclined to sell the house in question, therefore, the simpliciter suit for permanent injunction was instituted.

Appellants who are defendants No.2 to 5 in the suit have submitted their written statements. In the written statement, appellants have contended that plaintiff put his lock over the house in question during the lifetime of his adopted father and later on, on his askance of adopted father, lock was opened and plaintiff was in possession of suit property.

5. It appears that though plaintiff also impleaded his adopted father Mukut Bihari as defendant No.1 in the suit but he neither filed any written statement and was later on expired, therefore, his name was deleted from the title of suit. The suit was only contested by defendants No.2 to 5 (it means present appellants).

6. The question in the present civil suit for injunction arose before the Court that whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of institution of suit? The learned trial Court entered into the enquiry of title of suit property and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.4.2010. However, the Appellate Court, considered that since the present suit is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, therefore, the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in holding an enquiry of title and on that basis dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court observed that in the written statement submitted by defendants No.2 to 5 (appellants herein), they admits the possession of plaintiff over house in question, on the title of suit. Further the Appellate Court observed that witnesses of defendants, DW2 Deendayal admits in his cross-examination that plaintiff Omprakash was adopted by Mukut Bihari and he was residing with Mukut Bihari in the house in question. DW3 in his cross- examination admits that plai