1. The Civil Second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Udhampur on September 30, 1978 in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1977 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge, Udhampur in Civil Suit No. 12 of 1974 on December 30, 1976.

2 Briefly stated the Second appeal arises out of the suit filed by the present appellants against their father and Parveen Singh, the adopted son of Respondent No. 1, for declaration that Respondent No. 2-Parveen Singh is not a validly adopted son of their father. It is stated in the plaint that the adoption of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 will adversely affect the rights of the appellants, who are entitled to share the property after the death of their father and that the adoption deed dated 8. 1. 1974 executed and registered was not a valid piece of document as no handing over or taking over took place. On notice to the respondents, they in their written statements challenged the maintainability of the suit and contended that the ad vies, however, objections to the maintainability of suit was raised in the written statements. In consequence whereof learned trial court proceeded to ask the parties to choose whether they want to adduce any evidence on the preliminary point of maintainability of the suit by his order dated 16. 11. 1976 and framed a formal issue to the following effect :-

"Whether the suit is not maintainable? O. P. D."

Both the parties agreed not to adduce any evidence on the said issue. The learned trial court after hearing the respective parties on the basis of pleadings came to the conclusion that on the face of it, the appellants will succeed to their father after his death and their claim at that stage being a mere chance of succession cannot form the basic of declaration at this stage hence held the suit as not maintainable deciding the issue in favour of the respondents and against the present appellants. An application for permission to amend the plaint for adding the alternative relief of injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from addressing the appellants as their sisters was also rejected. The appellants preferred the appeal before the District Judge, Udhampur against the said dismissal of the suit. The learned District judge by his judgment and decree impugned in this second appeal maintained the decree of dismissal and dismissed the appeal.

3/- The appellants being aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned District Judge have preferred this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously submitted that the approach of the courts below is not in accordance with law. The right of the appellants to challenge th.3 adoption under the law of limitation will be barred by limitation, in case they are not permitted to continue the suit at this stage, secondly the shares inheritance of the property of the father is svested right, if the adoption is allowed to continue the right of the appellants will be prejudiced by reduction of their share in the property. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his contention placed reliance on Article 117 of the Limitation Act and on two authorities reported in ATR 1945 Madras ( Krishna Ayyar Appellant Vs. Gomathi Ammai and others Respondents) and A. I. R. 1943 Patna 68 (Kasi Palei alias Krushna Parida-defendent-Apppellant Vs. Radhika Dei and others, Plaintiff and others. Defendants - Respondents) for the propositition that under the above Article of Limitation Act, a period of Six years in provided to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid or in fact never took place from the date when the alleged adoption becomes know to the plaintiffs. Thus it is submitted that both the courts below by holding the suit as not maintainable has ignored this proposition of law, which in future after the death of Respondent No. 1 will debar the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document