IMPORTANT POINT
Adoption – In the event of there being a registered document pertaining to adoption, there would be presumption that adoption has been made in accordance with law.

ORDER

In the instant civil second appeal, the appellant herein has challenged judgment and decree dated 30.03.2000 passed by the court of Sub Judge, Reasi (for short the trial court) in case tilted as “Chandu vs. Chuni Lal and another” and judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Reasi (for short the appellate court) in case titled as “Dewan Chand vs. Chuni Lal and another”.

2. Facts giving rise of the filing of the instant appeal reveal that one Chandu substituted by the present appellant, filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the trial court for setting aside an Adoption Deed dated 12.02.1985, whereunder the said Chandu was claimed to have adopted respondent 2 herein in adoption, was alleged to have been got executed fraudulently and on misrepresentation of facts by the defendants/respondents herein, stating further that in fact, no adoption had taken place, in that, the ceremonies of giving and taking were never performed, inasmuch as, the defendant 2/respondent 2 herein never lived with the said Chandu.

3. The defendants in the suit and respondents herein in response to the summons issued by the trial court appeared and filed written statement to the suit and while opposing the same, contended in the said written statement that the Adoption Deed in question came to be executed by the plaintiff Chandu voluntarily out of his own free will and was drawn and drafted at his instance and that after drafting the same was read over and explained to him, whereafter, he put his thumb impression thereon and that the adoption ceremony was also performed in accordance with the Hindu and Customary Law and that the Adoption Deed was also got registered in the court by the plaintiff Chandu and the parents of the defendant 2/respondent 2 herein, wherein the plaintiff Chandu admitted the fact of the adoption of defendant 2 respondent 2 herein besides having admitted the said adoption in his statement made in an another suit, titled as Mst. Gulan vs. Raj Kumar.

4. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties therein the said suit, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether defendant No. 2 is not the adopted son of the plaintiff as no giving and taking has taken place? OPP

(ii) Whether defendants have fraudulently got executed the impugned adoption-deed from the plaintiff misrepresenting that it was the Will-deed? OPP

(iii) Whether the valuation for the purposes of Court fee has not been fixed properly and so what is the correct valuation? OPD

(iv) Whether the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court has not been fixed, if so what is its effect on the suit? OPD

(v) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, if yes, then how? OPD

(vi) Relief.

5. The plaintiff-Chandu in order to prove the issues (i) and (ii) supra framed by the trial court could not appear as a witness as during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Chandu died and consequently, the present appellant came to be substituted in his place as his legal heir and he, the appellant herein appeared as a witness in place of the plaintiff-Chandu and also produced witnesses, namely, Koushal Chand, Paras Ram and Bodh Raj.

6. The defendants in the suit respondents herein also produced witnesses, namely, Daya Ram, Jagdish Dutt, Pritam Singh besides defendant 1/respondent 1 appearing as his own witness.

7. The trial court, after concluding the trial of the case and after adjudicating upon the issues framed by it on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, inasmuch as, the evidence led thereof by the parties in terms of the impugned judgment and decree 30.03.2000, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant herein holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant 2 respondent 2 herein is not the adopted son of Chandu inasmuch as also failed to prove that the Adoption Deed dated 12.02.1985 was got executed by fraud or misrepresentation.

8. Aggrieved by the ju