Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Basudeo Singh s/o Kanhai Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Hira Devi & Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 355 of 1993 (P)
Decided On : 03-05-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Mr. R.N. Prasad, Mr. Jitesh Kumar
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 96/100 and Order XLI, rule 31 and Section 100 – Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – an appellate court is the final court of fact and, therefore a full and independent consideration of the evidence by appellate court is always desirable – judgment of appellate court must reflect conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on the all issues arising alongwith the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of appellate court – Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of right, title and interest being adopted son of deceased holder of property – Defendants denied deed of adoption of plaintiff taking plea that father of plaintiff got deed of adoption executed playing fraud – Trial court held that deed of adoption was not valid – First appellate court reversed the finding of trial court – Adoption deed is a registered document and valid in terms of Section 16 of Act of 1956 – Defendants failed to disprove the execution of adoption deed – Second appeal dismissed.
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The counsel appearing for the respondents is absent.
2. By the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice all the matters in which proceedings in the lower courts were stayed by the orders of this Court, have been notified in the cause list for 22.04.2016 and 23.04.2016. The instant Second Appeal was admitted on 24.03.1994 and thereafter, the matter has been listed on five earlier occasions. Moreover, the instant Second Appeal was filed way back in the year, 1993 and therefore, I did not adjourn the matter and I proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
3. The instant Second Appeal has been brought against the judgment of reversal dated 25.05.1993 passed in Title Appeal No.83 of 1985.
4. The appellants are the legal heirs and successors of Basudeo Singh S/o Kanhai Singh and other defendants. The suit was instituted by Mohan Singh for declaration of his right, title and interest in schedule A, B and E properties, being the adopted son of Ayodhaya Singh and Guna Kumari and for declaration of his right, title and interest in schedule C and D properties which were in joint possession of Ayodhaya Singh and other cosharers. The defendants challenged the validity of plaintiff's adoption by Guna Kumari on various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:
1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
2. Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit?
3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
4. Is Mohan Singh the adopted son of Guna Kumari and Ajodhaya Singh?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as claimed?
6. To what relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled?”
5. The trial court held that adoption of Mohan Singh by Guna Kumari and Ayodhaya Singh was not valid and Mohan Singh is not the adopted son of Guna Kumari. The suit was dismissed on contest, against which the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.83 of 1985. The lower appellate court framed the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the plaintiff-appellant Mohan Singh is the adopted son of recorded tenant Ayodhaya Singh through his widow Mostt. Guna Kumari and is he entitled for declaration of his right, title and interest over the properties as mentioned in Schedules A, B, C, D and E of the plaint and for recovery of possession over the properties as mentioned in Schedules A, B and E or not?
2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 19.9.85 as passed by Shri Shiveshwar Narayan, the then Subordinate Judge, Jamtara in Title Suit No.34/72 are erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside through the present appeal or not?
6. The lower appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court on the question of adoption of Mohan Singh by Guna Kumari and held that the plaintiff was entitled for a declaration of his right, title and interest over schedule A, B, C, D and E properties.
7. While admitting the instant Second Appeal, this Court framed the substantial question of law viz; (i) Whether the finding of the appellate court is vitiated for not assigning the reasons for reversing the finding of the trial court recorded in paragraph nos.12 to 16?
8. Heard.
9. At the outset, Mr. Manjul Prasad, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that no other substantial question of law except, the one framed vide order dated 24.03.1994 arises in the present Second Appeal. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the burden to prove adoption of Mohan Singh by Guna Kumari was upon the plaintiff, which the plaintiff failed to discharge. The plaintiff was required to prove his adoption by Guna Kumari beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt however, plaintiff's adoption remained clouded with doubts. It was contended that the trial court considering various circumstances which clouded the alleged adoption of Mohan Singh by Guna Kumari returned a finding that the adoption of Mohan Singh by Guna Kumari was not valid however, the lower appellate court without adverting to the circumstances relied upon by
