Honble GOYAL, J.–This is first appeal by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1992 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarhbas decreed the plaintiffs suit. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.

(2). The plaintiff Sh. Kashiram (since deceased) filed a suit on 26.2.1986 for cancellation of a gift deed dated 20.6.1977 and for declaration that the defendant No. 1 Sh. Virendra Singh is not the adopted son of the plaintiff with the averments that agricultural land measuring 15 beeghas 5 biswas as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and agricultural land measuring 16 & half beeghas as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint is in Khatedari and in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is having three daughters-all married and his wife. The defendants Virendra Singh and his father Deen Dayal are also residents of village Bheekhawas. The defendant No. 2 Sh. Deen Dayal is an advocate and on account of his contracts with the plaintiff, the plaintiff developed his confidence in defendant No. 2. Both the defendants in conspiracy approached the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff is having about 32 beeghas of land and in case half of this land is transferred by way of will, the plaintiffs land would be saved from ceiling and after some time the will would got be cancelled. Thus, taking the plaintiff in confidence the defendant No. 2 got his thumb impressions on a number of papers at Mundawar on 20.6.1977 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 filed the revenue suit against the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Assistant Collector, Kishangarhbas in August, 1985 and thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants got his thumb impressions on a gift deed said to be executed on 20.6.1977 in the guise of will executed on the same day and the fact that the defendant No. 1 has claimed himself to be the adopted son of the plaintiff and also got mutation in the revenue records on the basis of this alleged gift deed. According to the plaintiff, he never took the defendant No. 1 in adoption and he never executed any gift deed and thus the gift deed should be cancelled on the grounds stated in para 15 of the plaint and it should also be declared that the defendant No. 1 is not the adopted son of the plaintiff.

(3). The defendants in their joint written statement while denying all the allegations of the plaint pleaded that the plaintiff executed a will as well as a gift deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 respectively for the agricultural lands as mentioned in paras 2 & 1 of the plaint and since then the defendant No. 2 is in possession of the entire agricultural land. It was also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 was adopted by the plaintiff and his wife on 28.8.1977 by performing all the rituals as mentioned in para 9 of the written statement and thus the defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of the plaintiff. An objection with regard to limitation was also taken.

(4). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 14.4.1988.

1- D;k izfroknh la- 2 us viuh pkykdh ls oknh ls esytksy c<+kdjoknh dh tehu lhfyax esa pyh tk;sxh /kks[ks ls olh;r ukek dh dgdj nkui= izfroknh la. 1 ds i{k esa djok fy;k\

2- D;k nkui= fnukad 20-6-77 dks okn ds iSjk la- 15 esa vafdr dkj.kksa ls ckfry o csvlj gSa\

3- D;k oknh ;g ?kks"k.kk djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS gS fd izfroknh la- 1 oknh dk xksn iq= ugha gSa\

4- D;k okn vanj fe;kn gS\

5- vuqrks"kA

(5). On the basis of the amended pleadings following additional issue was framed on 5.4.1991:-

^^vk;k nhun;ky etdwj us oknh dh tehu pys tkus dk Mj fn[kkdj vuqfpr ncko Mkyk rFkk nkui= ij olh;ruke ds uke ls vaxwBs djk fy;sA**

(6). The Trial Court recorded the evidence of both the parties and vide impugned judgment decreed the plaintiffs suit.

(7). During pendency of this appeal the defendant No. 2 Deen Dayal and the plaintiff Kashiram have expired. Their legal heirs have been brought on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document