The court upheld the validity of a registered adoption deed, emphasizing that the suit challenging it was barred by limitation as it was filed 33 years after the plaintiffs gained knowledge of the adoption.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2018 (decree signed on 05.10.2018) passed by learned District Judge – I, Dumka in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2012 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012 (decree signed on 02.08.2012) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge – I, Dumka in Title Suit No.03 of 2008 has been reversed. The learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. The defendant no.1 is the appellant before this Court.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 13.06.2023 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality by ignoring the fact that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation?

2. Whether the learned First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact the plaintiff no. 2, could not have been arrayed as such, when the plaintiff no. 1 was making the prayer for cancellation of adoption of defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff no. 2, has no other right except that he is one of the adopted son of plaintiff no. 1?

3. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality by raising doubts over the execution of Exhibit B/1, even though, the execution of the same, is not disputed by the executant thereof?"

Arguments of the Appellant/Defendant

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph 2 of the trial court’s judgment to submit that the entire case of the plaintiff has been narrated therein. He has submitted that the specific case of the plaintiff was that the defendant no.2 is a Mahajan of the locality, a property grabber. The plaintiff no.1 and the defendants had come to Dumka Registry office on 25.06.1975 for execution of bhugabandha (mortgage) deed. However, with a view to grab the land of the plaintiff no.1 (Shanti Kumrain) the defendant no.2 fraudulently manufactured a deed of adoption in favour of his son Pawan Rout (defendant no.1). After some time, the defendant no.2 told the plaintiff no.1 about the adoption deed and on inquiry the plaintiff no.1 learnt about the matter on 18.08.1975. Then the plaintiff no.1 executed a deed of cancellation of adoption deed no.478/1975 dated 23.06.1975 before the Registry Office, Dumka. The cause of action for the suit arose on 12.09.2007 the date on which the defendants claimed adoption before the police officer of Ramgarh based on the alleged adoption deed no.478/1975. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendant’s adoption deed was forged.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that it was the case of the plaintiffs themselves that they came to know about the adoption deed no.478/1975 at least on 18.08.1975 and that they had also executed a deed of cancellation of the adoption deed no.478/1975 but apart from such statement about cancellation of adoption deed no.478/1975, no such deed of cancellation has been exhibited before the court. The suit was barred by limitation as it was filed much after 18.08.1975. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 7 SCC 767 (Md. Noorul Hoda Vs. Bibi Raifunnisa and Ors.) to submit that in case of fraud also, the suit for declaration or cancellation of the deed has to be filed within a period of three years from the date of knowledge.

Arguments of the Plaintiffs

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs claimed that the plaintiff no.1 had taken plaintiff no.2 Kundan Kumar by way of adoption on 24.06.2002 after completing the ceremonies. He has also submitted that the plaintiff no.1 is an illiterate lady and has no knowledge of law and procedure, and therefore, merely because the adoption deed no.478/1975 was not challenged, the same is not fatal to her case particularly in view of the fact that it was her specific case that adoption deed no.478/1975 was executed by fraud committed by the defend