IMPORTANT POINT
[The validity of an adoption deed requires adherence to legal formalities, including proper ceremonies, and knowledge of such deeds impacts the limitation period for challenging them.]

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.07.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jamtara in Title Appeal No.69 of 2015 dismissing the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 26.11.2015 and decree signed on 07.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamtara in Title Suit No.45 of 2007.

3. The plaintiffs/appellants instituted the suit with the prayer to declare that the defendant no.1, namely, Kisto @ Krishna Chandra Rai was never adopted by Mahavir Rai and the alleged deed of adoption is illegal, void and not enforceable in law. The further prayer was made in the suit for cancellation of the alleged deed no.76 of 1985 registered at Jamtara Sub- Registration Office. The prayer was also made for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant- Kisto @ Krishna Chandra Rai from claiming as adopted son of Mahavir Rai since deceased. The further prayer was made for cost of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants before the learned Trial Court was as under:

The plaintiffs and others are Jamabandi raiyat of mouza Kurta, Lakshmipur and Bistupur having lands in joint khatiyan no. 46, 47, 25 and 30 respectively recorded in the names of Babulal Rai and others, the ancestors of the plaintiffs during last survey settlement concluded in the year 1935 having 23.50 acres of lands described in the parcha. The defendants are outsiders and they have no concerned with landed properties of the aforesaid khatiyans.

The plaintiffs have given a genealogical table in plaint to show the relationship of the plaintiffs inter se and with their common ancestor and recorded tenant of their joint khatiyan. Out of the recorded tenants, Babulal Rai died first leaving his only son Mahavir Rai as his sole heir and successor. The further case of the plaintiffs was that Lalitabala Dasi was wife of Mahabir Rai, but they have got no issue and they were all along very much satisfied with their cousins and their children and never intended to take son in adoption by debarring all his co-sharers. Lalitabala Dasi became very much sick and invalid in or about 1984, hence as per Lalita advice, Mahavir Rai brought Lalita's sister's daughter Sushilabala Dasi, defendant no.3 therein for her nursing and to look after homestead affairs like fooding and her husband Puran @ Puranchand Rai was visiting Mahavir's house off and on. Subsequently, Puran @ Puranchand Rai, defendant no.02 therein was also engaged in cultivation works over lands possessed by Mahavir Rai as a result of family arrangement and started living in the house of Mahavir Rai as his Munish (agricultural labourer). Lalita Dasi, wife of Mahavir Rai died in the year 2001 and her Mukhagni was done by the plaintiff Churaman Rai as elder nephew and Mahavir Rai was forced to keep defendant in his house or residential work and cultivation as he became old and sick. The plaintiffs being sympathetic to Mahavir Rai allowed the defendant to live in the house of Mahavir Rai and to cultivate lands on his behalf as his munish. The said Mahavir Rai died in Kartik 2006 and the plaintiff Churaman Rai performed his Mukhagni and last rites according to Hindu custom as Mahavir was issueless and utilized the productions of his field in his Bhoj-Bhat by entering into possession over his possessed lands. After Bhoj-Bhat, the plaintiffs asked the defendant to vacate the house of Mahavir Rai, but the defendants were deferring the matter by hook and crook and were requesting the plaintiffs to permit the defendants to live till they could shift to their paternal village Dalberia. In between the aforesaid negotiation, rainy season started and while the defendant-Puran @ Purna Chand Rai on 20.05.2007 went to the fields of Mahavir Rai with plough, cattle for its cultivation, the plaintiffs who reside in the village have taken up possession of Mahavir Rai, did not allow the defendant