Compliance with the conditions for a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is essential to establish the legality of adoption and the right in the suit property.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.101/2003 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.48/1994 by the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Dantaramgarh, District Sikar whereby and whereunder the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff claiming himself to be adopted son of respondent-defendant Mohani Devi, has been dismissed on merits.

2. Heard counsel for appellant at length and perused the impugned judgments and record.

3. Relevant facts of present case as culled out from the record are that appellant-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction on 05.07.1994 alleging inter alia that respondentdefendant Mohani Devi is his adoptive mother and plaintiff was adopted by late Shri Bhanwar Lal and his wife Smt. Mohani Devi nearabout 15-16 years ago according to hindu rites and customs. Plaintiff claimed his right as adopted son in the suit property belonging to late Shri Bhanwar Lal and defendant Smt. Mohani Devi and stated that the suit property is ancestral which is in joint possession of plaintiff and defendant. Defendant has no right to sell and transfer the suit property and be restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff claimed his right in the suit property alleging himself to be the adopted son of respondent-defendant.

4. Respondent-defendant submitted her written statement on 06.09.1996 and categorically denied the adoption of plaintiff by her and her husband late Shri Bhanwar Lal. Defendant contended that plaintiff is not her adopted son and has no right, title or interest in the suit properties which are her exclusive properties. Defendant contended that the suit has been filed maliciously, in order to grab the suit property thus, the suit be dismissed. Defendant also prayed that plaintiff intended to enter into possession of suit property by using force and manhandling, therefore, plaintiff be restrained not to enter into possession of the suit property and not to dispossess the defendant nor create any hindrance in use and occupation of suit property by defendant.

4.1 Plaintiff submitted reply to the counter claim and stated that the suit property is ancestral and plaintiff is being adopted son of defendant and unless suit property is not partitioned, no injunction as prayed for by defendant in counter claim can be granted.

5. It is worthy to note here that undisputedly, there is no written document to prove the adoption of plaintiff and plaintiff has claimed his right in the suit property on the basis of adoption but has not sought any declaration for his adoption. Even when the defendant categorically denied the adoption of plaintiff to her and her husband late Shri Bhanwar Lal, plaintiff has not amended the plaint seeking relief of declaration of his adoption rather continued with the present suit which is simplicitor for permanent injunction. The trial court, in order to decide the suit for permanent injunction and counter claim, framed issue No.1 as to whether plaintiff was adopted by defendant and her husband as per hindu rites and plaintiff is adopted son of defendant? Issue No.2 was framed as to whether plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession over the suit property and other issues pertains to the right of plaintiff in the suit properties.

6. Both parties adduced their evidence. On appreciation of evidence, trial court as well as first appellate court have concurrently decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff and it has been clearly held that there is no substantive evidence on record to prove the adoption of plaintiff to late Shri Bhanwar Lal and defendant Smt. Mohani Devi.

7. Plaintiff’s witness PW-2 Pt. Vishwanath who was produced to prove the adoption ceremony himself admits in cross-objection that adoption ceremony wa