IMPORTANT POINT
Adoption Deed--It must be made and signed by both parties--Mere signature by natural guardians as witness thereon does not make deed executed by both parents.

Alok Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the present second appeal challenging the judgment and, decree dated 7.10.1986 passed by the learned trial Court and judgment and decree dated 9.4.1987 passed by the learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge (II), Rohtak. By the impugned judgments and decrees, both the Courts have dismissed the suit seeking declaration that the adoption of Krishan, defendant No.3, is illegal, void and ineffective.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed this suit for issuance of a declaratory decree, challenging the adoption of Krishan by defendant No. 1, Ude Singh and decree and judgment dated 14.10.1981 passed in favour of Krishan defendant No. 3 and Khazani, defendant No. 2. Plaintiff has averred that Ude Singh, defendant No. 1, has no male issue; plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 4 are his daughters; the land mentioned in para No. 1-A of the plaint is owned and possessed by defendant No. 1, situated in Village Mehrana; defendants No. 1 to 3, in order to defeat the rights of plaintiff who could have inherited 1/4 share of the total estate of Ude Singh after his death, fraudulently by way of collusive civil suit filed by defendants No. 2 and 3 against defendant No. 1, got the land in suit decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.1981; in a collusive civil suit, defendant No. 3 Krishan was declared owner in possession to the extent of 2/5 share and defendant No. 2 Khazani to the extent of 1/6 share of the total land in dispute; the said judgment and decree was obtained fraudulently and are illegal, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff; no family settlement ever took place between them nor defendant No. 3. Krishan was adopted by defendant No. 1; that suit was collusive and was also bad for non- joinder of necessary party and the then plaintiffs (now defendants No. 2 and 3) were declared to be owners in possession of more shares than the defendant No. 1 had; in fact, defendant No. 1 Ude Singh never appeared in the Court nor any Vakalatnama was signed by him and nor any statement was made by him in the Court; the plea of adoption was also fake one; the subsequent adoption deed dated 15.12.1981 is also illegal, void and a fictitious document and was executed just to create relationship between defendant No. 1 - Ude Singh and defendant No. 3 - Krishan; thus, defendant No. 3 - Krishan was totally a stranger to the family of plaintiff; a number of times plaintiff asked defendants to admit her claim to the extent of 1/4 share in the property in dispute but to no effect. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendants contested the suit by refuting all the allegations made in the plaint. Defendant No.3 alleged that he is adopted son of defendant No.1 and both are in relationship of son and father; they are Jat and do agriculture and are governed by jamindar reewaj and plaintiff being a female, can not challenge an alienation and thus, she has no right and locus standi to file the suit.

4. Learned trial Court framed following issues:-

"1. Whether the adoption deed dated 15.12.1981 is illegal, forged, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff ?OPP.

2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1981 in Suit No. 718 titled as Krishan Singh v. Ude Singh are illegal, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.

3. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit as alleged in P.O. No. 1 of the W.S. ? OPD.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is infructuous as it does not give all details as alleged in para No. 2 of additional objection in W.S. ? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is debarred from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct ? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, if so, to what effect ? OPD.

7. Whether the suit has been filed by plaintiff in connivance with son of her uncle to harm the interest of defendant, if so, to what effect ? OPD.

8. Relief."