Compliance with Section 11(iii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is mandatory for a valid adoption.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgments and decrees dated 04.12.2014 and 09.03.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court, respectively whereby her suit has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that defendant-respondent no.1 and proforma defendant-respondent no.2 are co-sharers and co-owners and in joint possession of the share of late Rajinderjit Singh and the plaintiffappellant was having 1/3rd share and the proforma defendant-respondent no.2 was also having 1/3rd share in the suit property, as also for perpetual injunction restraining defendant-respondent no.1 from alienating the suit property in any manner. It was averred in the plaint that late Rajinderjit Singh and defendant-respondent no.1 were husband and wife and were issueless and since they could not give birth to any child even after 12 years of their marriage, the plaintiff-appellant, who is the daughter of Randeep Singh, real brother of Rajinderjit Singh, was adopted by Rajinderjit Singh when she was aged 7 1/2 years before the Gram Panchayat on 15.04.1994 and a resolution to the said effect was passed by the Gram Panchayat and the same was duly recorded in the proceedings book of the Gram Panchayat. It is further averred that Rajinderjit Singh brought the plaintiff-appellant to his house and started treating her as his daughter. Further, it was averred that after the death of Rajinderjit Singh, defendant-respondent no.1 changed her attitude towards plaintiff-appellant and that defendant-respondent no.1 left her house and started living at her parental house. It is further averred that the property of Rajinderjit Singh would be inherited by plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent no.1 in equal shares.

3. Upon notice, defendant-respondent no.1 appeared and filed her written statement raising the objections qua maintainability of the suit. It was admitted that the plaintiff-appellant is the daughter of Randeep Singh, real brother of Rajinderjit Singh. It was further stated in the written statement that the present suit had been filed in connivance and with the conspiracy of defendant-respondent no.2 to get a share of the valuable property left by Rajinderjit Singh. It is further denied that the plaintiffappellant was the adopted daughter of Rajinderjit Singh.

4. Defendant-respondent no.2 filed her separate written statement admitting the claim of plaintiff-appellant.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether Manpreet Kaur is the adopted daughter of Rajinderjit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur defendant no.1 ? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of true and material facts and has not come to the court with clean hands ? OPD

7. Relief.

6. The Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant holding that she had failed to prove the adoption. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred which also met the same fate. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that the plaintiff-appellant had proved her adoption by producing in evidence the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that both the Courts below have totally ignored the said resolution (Ex.P7).

8. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.