The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the civil death of the adoptive father and the invalidity of the adoption deed, affirming the validity of the adoption and related sale deeds.

Judgment :

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.)

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and all three appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These three appeals have been filed by the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 CPC of Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.43/2012 titled as “Ladu V/s Ram Lal & Ors.”, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for declaring the adoption deed as null and void, permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.04.2005 which was presented on 05.03.2005 and cancelling the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 has been decreed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of adoption deed as null and void and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.04.2005 presented on 5.03.2005 and cancellation of sale deed dated 30.06.2005. The said suit was amended. The plaintiff sought various reliefs and also sought the relief that the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 executed by Ramlal in favour of Vastu Township Private Limited be declared as illegal and void and also that the sale deed dated 04.04.2005 presented on 05.03.2005 executed by legal heirs of Ram Chandra in favour of M/s Tiyara Construction Private Limited be also declared as illegal and void. The plaintiff in his suit mentioned that the disputed land originally belonged to Bhoriya @ Bhairu. After his death, land vested in Ladu(the plaintiff), Ram Chandra and Mohriya (all sons of Bhoriya @ Bhairu). Later on Mohriya became monk and he died in the year 1992. Plaintiff came to know that after the death of Bhoriya, by way of forged document(s) Ramlal wanted to get mutated the land of Mohriya in his name. He also created forged document(s) i.e. adoption deed dated 10.02.1991. At that time, civil death of Mohriya had occurred. So, the said document(s) could not be executed. It was also stated that as per Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a person, who is above the age of 15 years, cannot be adopted. At the time of execution of adoption deed, Ramlal was 30 years old. So, he can not be taken in adoption. So, the document(s) dated 10.02.1991 was void and illegal. The suit was said to be within limitation. So, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed.

4. The defendants filed the written statement in which it was stated that land in question was subject matter of acquisition under the land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was also stated that originally land belonged to Bhoriya @ Bhairu, who expired leaving behind his three sons Mohriya, Ram Chandra and Ladu. Mohriya died issueless but he adopted Ram Lal, who stepped into the shoes of Mohriya. Before the land acquisition authority, all the three sons agreed to get the compensation for their respective shares and to get 25% of the developed land in lieu thereof. The matter concluded and attained finality. The said award has not been challenged till today. The legal heir(s) of defendant No.2- Ram Chandra stated that they had sold 1/3rd share of the disputed land to M/s Tiyara Construction Pvt. Limited for which they were entitled. So, sale deed executed by them could not be cancelled. It was also stated that Mohriya had adopted Ram Lal on 17.07.1969 when age of Ram Lal was 9 to 10 years. The plaintiff had undervalued the suit and paid deficit court fees. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

5. On the pleading of the parties, the trial framed the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the defendant No.1 Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya through adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 and whether on account of civil death, Mohriya became monk in samvat 2010-20, so he was not com