IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that claims of adoption must be substantiated by clear evidence, and a lis pendens purchaser lacks standing to challenge findings related to the vendor's status if the vendor does not contest those findings.

Judgment

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment & decree dated 17th March, 2018 and 31st March, 2018 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhenkanal in R.F.A. No.09 of 2013 (14 of 2017).

Late Sulochana Panda as the Plaintiff, had filed C.S. No.318 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhenkanal for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession over the properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint with further declaration that the sale deeds in respect of Schedule-B & B-1 properties are null and void and the Respondent Nos.2 to 12 (Defendant Nos.1 to 11) have no manner of right, title and interest over the said properties with the prayer confirmation of possession of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) over Schedule-B & B-1 properties in the alternative for recovery of possession, if found to have been dispossessed.

2. Sulochana (Plaintiff) having died after disposal of the First Appeal, her legal representatives including the legal representatives of her deceased son have been substituted as Respondent No.1(a)(ii) to 1(a)(iii).

3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

4. Plaintiff's case is that she is the only child of Gunanidhi Panigrahi. The properties in suit were recorded in the name of Gunanidhi and it was the ancestral property in his hand. After the death Gunanidhi, the properties came to be recorded in the name of his wife, namely, Megha Panigrahi in the Hal Settlement Operation. The Plaintiff had married Raghunath of the same village, who died leaving behind her son Purna, who is also dead. Purna had two sons, namely, Premananda and Srinibas and a daughter, namely, Kamini. Raghunath left behind four acres of landed properties. All children of Purna are married. Since Purna had two sons, the Plaintiff thought it wise that in future, Premananda would enjoy the properties left by Raghunath whereas Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) would enjoy the properties left by Gunanidhi. The house of Gunanidhi when collapsed, his widow Megha resided in the house of the Plaintiff till her death and Purna was looking after the entire cultivation of the properties as his sons were prosecuting their studies. Srinibas (Defendant No.ll), in course of time, became wayward and discontinued his study. When he reached the age of 19/20, he started taking alchohol and ganja. Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) became disobedient and started misbehaving Purna. Premananda, the other son also discontinued his study while reading in college and proceeded to Kamakhyanagar to earn his livelihood by running a betel shop. In the year 2009, he closed down his shop at Kamakhyanagar and returned to their Village-Ambapada. Taking advantage of the innocence of the Plaintiff and helpless condition of Puma, Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) terrorized the entire family for his illegal gain and wanted to enjoy the lion's share of the properties. In a bid to fulfill his evil plan, he got his name mutated in respect of the land under Khata No.260 of Village-Ambapada describing himself as the son of Gunanidhi. This mutation was done behind the back of the Plaintiff. Gunanidhi died when the Plaintiff was only seven years. Megha had never adopted Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) at any point of time. So, mutation of the land under Khata No.260 of Village-Ambapada is said to have been obtained in mischievously designed manner/way. Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) then started transferring the properties from said holding by executing sale deeds. He last transferred the property on l8.06.20l0 in favour of Hata Kishore (Defendant No.lO).

The Defendant Nos.l to l0 except Biswanath (Defendant No.2) are all the illegal purchasers of the properties from out of the land under Khata No.260 Village-Ambapada. The Defe