The court upheld the validity of a registered adoption deed, affirming the rights of the adopted son to property, and found no grounds for interfering with the trial court's interim order.

Order :

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.9/2024 (CIS No.9/2024) whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC as filed on behalf of the plaintiff, has been partly allowed.

2. Vide the order impugned dated 07.01.2025, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have been restrained from alienating or transferring the properties in question till final disposal of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Deelip Kawadia submits that the application ought to have been allowed in toto as once the Court recorded a finding of a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff qua the other properties, there was no reason as to why the Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff qua the property which was sold out by defendant No.3-Chaitanya to defendant Nos.10 to 12. Learned counsel submitted that once the Court observed that the veracity of the alleged adoption deed as well as the will would be decided only after the evidence been led qua the same, there was no reason as to why the Court relied upon the said documents to decide in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.10 to 12 qua the part of the property as sold out to defendant Nos.10 to 12.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact of defendant No.3 having not been adopted by Roshanlal is also evident on record as in the earlier suit filed by Raghuveer Singh i.e. natural father of Chaitanya, he himself admitted that he was son of Raghuveer Singh. Therein Chaitanya nowhere stated that he was the adopted son of Roshanlal. In view of the said admission of defendant No.3 himself, the Court could not have concluded or held defendant No.3 to be the adopted son of Roshanlal.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the above facts, the order to maintain status quo regarding all the properties in question ought to have been passed and further defendant Nos.10 to 12 ought to have been restrained from alienating the property in question.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Saruparia appearing on behalf of defendant Nos.10 to 12 and learned counsel Mr. Love Jain appearing on behalf of defendant No.3 submitted that the learned Trial Court correctly recorded the findings qua the property sold out to defendant Nos.10 to 12. It was prima facie evident on record that a partition in writing had been undertaken between Ranglal and Roshanlal way back in the year 1977 and the present property in question, by virtue of said partition, fell into the share of Roshanlal. Subsequently, Roshanlal, vide a registered adoption deed dated 20.06.1995, adopted defendant No.3- Chaitanya. Further, even a will dated 11.02.2003 was executed by Roshanlal in favour of Chaitanya therefore, by virtue of adoption as well as by virtue of the will, Chaitanya was entitled to the share of Roshanlal and he rightly sold out his share to defendant Nos.10 to 12. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court, while making the above observations, rightly excluded the property sold out to defendant Nos.10 to 12 from the interim order to maintain status quo or not to alienate the same. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned is totally in consonance with the material available on record and does not deserve any interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. In the specific opinion of this Court, the order impugned does not deserve any interference for the following reasons:

i. The adoption deed dated 20.06.1995 is a registered document and there is no reason at this stage as to why the same is to be discarded. The proof of the same definitely w