IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Zakarias Hansda @ Jyoti Anthony - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Bhagat, S/o Late Gaura Bhagat - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 16 of 2025
Decided on : 01-05-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10, Section 151 - Res Judicata - The appellant's title suit was dismissed, and the appeal against the dismissal was also rejected, with the courts affirming that the appellant's claim of adoption was not substantiated and the suit was barred by res judicata. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Adoption - Legal status - The court found that the appellant failed to prove his status as an adopted son, as the evidence presented was insufficient and contradictory regarding the adoption process. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit for partition claiming rights over ancestral land, asserting he was adopted by Chhedi Chick, but the defendants contested this claim based on prior judgments.
Findings of Court:
The courts found that the appellant's claims were barred by res judicata due to previous litigation on the same issue, and the evidence of adoption was inadequate.
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit was barred by res judicata and whether the appellant proved his status as an adopted son.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled that the appellant's claims were previously adjudicated and that he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his adoption claim.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Shobhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 respectively passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Simdega in Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019, whereby, he has been pleased to affirm the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 and 12.12.2018 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ist, Simdega passed in Original Suit No.07 of 2017.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said title suit was instituted by the appellant for right, title and interest, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.2018, against which, Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 was preferred and the said civil appeal was further dismissed vide judgment dated 06.08.2024. He further submits that both the learned courts have wrongly decided the issue of res judicata against the appellant herein and in view of that, there is law point involved in the present second appeal and, as such, this second appeal may kindly be admitted on such law points.
4. It transpires from the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court that the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the learned courts was that the parties are by caste Chick Baraik, member of Schedule Tribe governed by customary law in the matter of inheritance, Succession, partition, adoption etc. The suit land is situated in village Gotra, P.S.+ District- Simdega under Khata No. 34 total Plot 39 area 17.40 acres of land and suit land situated in village Konmenjra P.S. T. Tangar, District Simdega under Khewat No.10 Khata No.241, Plot No. 2886/2861/3556 and 2817 total area 4.55 acres and both the suit lands originally recorded in the name of Ghumru Chick and Bhullu Chick both sons of late Ahlad Chick in Revisional Survey record of right as Kaimi raiyati land particularly described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the suit land situated in village Gotra, P.S. Simdega District Simdega bearing Khata No. 226, Plot No. 3427,3428,3533 total area 1.10 acres is the self-acquired property of Bhullu Chick and the sons of Bhullu Chick sold two plots out of the above three plots total area 1.03 acres bearing Plot No. 3427 measuring area 0.56 acres and plot No. 3428 measuring area 0.47 acres and now only 0.07 acres of plot No. 3533 remains in Khata No. 226 more fully described in Schedule-C. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the recorded tenant namely Ghumru Chick and Bhullu Chick during their life time they held, possessed, peacefully cultivated and enjoyed the suit property described in Schedule-A as the rightful owner and thereafter Ghumru Chick died issueless, then entire share of Ghumru Chick automatically got devolved on Bhullu Chick who thereafter Bhullu Chick came in exclusive possession of the entire property of the Schedule-A,B and C and thereafter Bhullu Chick Baraik died leaving behind his three sons namely Chhedi Chick, Gaura Bhagat and Gauri Bhagat. After death of their father Bhullu Chick they came in exclusive possession of the land in question. Chhedi Chick son of Bhullu Chik had no issue as such after approval of lawful consent from the family members Chhedi Chick and his wife decided to adopt a son and in this regard a village Panchayati was held in the village in presence of Mukhiya and other members of the village Gotra and in presence of Panchayati Chhedi Chick and his wife adopted the plaintiff as their legal son which was also duly consented by the plaintiff as biological father and mother. All rites, rituals, and custom of adoption were performed by Chhedi Chik and his wife Bhudan Baraik in the year 1954 and after that adopted plaintiff become part and partial of adoptive father and acquires legal status of son for the purpose of inheritance and successor and also used to cultivate the land of Chhedi Chick and was in peaceful possession over the sam
The court upheld the principle of res judicata, affirming that the appellant's claims regarding adoption and property rights were previously adjudicated and lacked sufficient evidence.
The right to seek partition is inherent and continuous for co-owners; prior dismissal of a partition suit does not bar subsequent suits, provided the parties are different.
The validity of an adoption must establish consent of both natural parents, failing which the adoption may be considered invalid under Hindu law.
The validity of adoption requires clear, cogent evidence of factum, including actual giving and taking; mere documentation is insufficient without proof of the legal requirements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the adoption deed and the plaintiff's lack of locus standi to question the adoption.
Point of law: A perfectly valid adoption deed can be made without an adoption deed and any status which the adopted son gets by virtue of adoption is due to the proper ceremonies being performed and ....
Valid adoption severs biological family ties completely; unchallenged adoption makes acquired property exclusive to adopted son, barring biological brother's partition claim absent timely challenge.
The court established that without conclusive evidence of adoption through a formal ceremony, claims of adoption cannot be accepted. The validity of the Gift deed was also rejected due to lack of evi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.