A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is restricted to substantial questions of law, not factual re-evaluations. Valid proofs for claims such as adoption must meet statutory requirements for recognition.

ORDER :

SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J.

1. The record of the Court of first instance and the First Appellate Court have been received.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission of appeal and the substantial questions of law.

3. The respondents Mahesh, his mother Parvatibai and son Aniruddh had filed a civil suit assailing the sale-deed dated 22.12.2009 executed by defendant No.2 Rameshchandra @ Ashok Kumar in favour of defendant No.1 Sakesh Soni and praying for declaring it null and void to the extent of area of disputed property and declaration of joint user of the passage situated between the ancestral properties of both the parties. The plaintiff claimed that his predecessor in the title, Chandulal and predecessor in the title of defendant, Chunnilal were contesting a civil suit with regard to the disputed property. In the Civil Suit No.31/1950, a compromise decree dated 13.02.1952 was passed, wherein it was decreed that the passage admeasuring 7 x 20 feet would be used by both the parties. The defendant no.2 had executed sale-deed of his house in favour of the respondent No.2 including the passage which was for common usage between the parties, therefore, the sale-deed is null and void to the extent of passage admeasuring 7 x 15 feet. Further, the well belonging to the plaintiff was shown as joint user in the sale-deed which was exclusive property of the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right or title in the well.

4. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 in their written statement admitted that their predecessor in title, Chunnilal and predecessor in title of plaintiff, Chandulal were real brothers. The defendant No.2 had transferred the property which came to his share in the family partition, to the defendant No.1 by registered sale-deed. The plaintiffs are not title holder of the disputed property. There is non-joinder of other family members in the suit.

5. The purchaser/defendant No.1 Sakesh(the appellant herein) did not file any written statement.

6. Learned record of the Court of first instance on completion of trial vide judgment dated 23.12.2017, passed in RCSA No.42A/2010 passed the following decree :-

7. The judgment and decree dated 23.12.2017 was assailed in First Appeal No.RCA 13/2018 by defendant No.1 Sakesh. The first Appellate Court i.e. Vth Additional District Judge, Dhar(M.P.) vide judgment dated 20.08.2019 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the present appellant Sakesh referring to the evidence on record contends that the respondent/Plaintiff Mahesh was given in adoption to his uncle Mansukhlal. In a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the Vakalatnama filed in that matter, Mahesh had represented himself as son of Mansukhlal. The name of Mahesh was mutated on properties of Mansukhlal after his demise, therefore, Mahesh has lost his right, title or interest in the property of his biological father Purshottam. Mahesh had no right over the disputed property, therefore, he was not entitled to challenge the execution of sale deed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 Mahesh was not in possession of the property, therefore, he cannot claim joint user over the disputed property. Learned counsel for the appellant proposed the following substantial questions of law :

(a) Whether, the learned Judges of the Courts below grossly erred in not dismissing the suit on the ground that the suit proeprty was not properly described in the plaint ?

(b) Whether the learned Judges of the Courts below grossly erred in taking into account the document Ex-P/17 i.e. comprom