The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and the physical act of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dumka in Title Appeal No. 10 of 2004/01 of 2007 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of reversal, the learned first appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Dumka in Title Suit No. 31 of 1993 and in paragraph no. 4 at page no. 15 has held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that the actual ceremony of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in accordance with law in between the defendant no. 4 and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the defendant no. 3 and the said deed of adoption obtained by defendant no. 1 by playing fraud and misrepresentation upon the defendant no. 4.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the parties to the suit are Hindu by religion and are governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu law. The recorded tenant- Guli Mandal with his 1/3rd share of land was residing with his wife and four sons who all formed joint Hindu family and all the sons of Guli Mandal were joint till their deaths. Out of the four sons of Guli Mandal, the lineage of two sons became extinct and the plaintiffs are the surviving descendants of lineage of one son of Guli Mandal namely Janki Mandal. The lineage of other son of Guli Mandal namely Bibhuti Mandal consisted of his deserted widow namely Robni Mossamat. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no. 1 is possessing and managing the entire property of her grand father-in-law, the recorded tenant-Guli Mandal. Robni Mossamat deserted her husband 25 years before filing of the suit and Bibhuti Mandal died about 22 years before filing of the suit. Basudeo Mandal- the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 came in exclusive possession of the entire land. The defendant no. 4-Robni Mossamat after she deserted her husband about 25 years back permanently settled and resided with her relation Anand Mandal in Village-Kumharkuli severing all her connections with the family of Bibhuti Mandal. Robni Mossamat did not even came on the death of Bibhuti Mandal. In the month of June, 1993, the defendant no. 1-Dhiren Chandra Mandal duped the defendant no. 4 in the guise of getting the power of attorney executed by Robni Mossamat in favour of the defendant no. 1 for getting back the property of Bibhuti Mandal and also taking advantage of old age and ailing condition of the defendant second party no. 4-Robni Mossamat; the defendant no. 1 instigated the defendant second party no. 4 to execute a paper authorizing him to look after her interest in her properties and cultivation work so that she may get back land and continued polluting her brain till July, 1993. The defendant no. 1 in connivance with the deed writer, witnesses and others played fraud and got the alleged deed of so called adoption prepared on his own instance and got it registered on or about 31.07.1993. During the transplantation in the middle of August, 1993, the defendant no. 1 wanted to intervene in cultivation work of the plaintiff no. 1 and on protest, he declared that son of Kartik Mandal has been adopted by Robni Mandalain- the defendant no. 4 and registered paper has been executed to this effect. On hearing this, the plaintiffs and all the villagers including the witnesses to the document became astonished and opposed and did not allow the defendant no. 1 to disturb the transplantation work of plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs further asserted that the defendant second party no. 4 or her predeceased deserted husband-Bibhuti Mandal never expressed any desire to adopt anyone as son nor she had any necessity to adopt and she severed all her connection with her husband. The plaintiffs further pleaded that suitable boys were available in her own family of her husband’s own brother’s sons. Hen