The findings of the first appellate court is perverse by not considering the relevant evidence both oral and documentary by coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have succeeded in rebutting the presumption of adoption which flowed from the registered deed of adoption, the validity and genuineness of which was not even disbelieved by the first appellate court.

1 S.A. No. 99 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No.99 of 2015

------

Panchu Poddar & Another

....

....

…. Appellant

Versus

Shibeshwar Poddar & Others

....

....

.... Respondents

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

Order No.05 Dated- 04.01.2023

Heard the parties.

Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent no.1 has

died since long but no prayer for substitution has been made as yet.

Accordingly, this appeal abates against the respondent no.1

Sonu-Gunjan/-

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1

S.A. No. 99 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No.99 of 2015

(Against the Judgment and decree dated 28^th February, 2004 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur, F.T.C –VII in Title Appeal

No. 37 of 1998)

------

1. Panchu Poddar, Son of Late Nunu Lal Poddar

2. Smt. Bindu Devi, Wife of Panchu Poddar

(Both residents of village –Harkatta, P.O. –Deoghar, P.S. –Mohanpur,

District -Deoghar)

....

....

…. Appellants

Versus

1. Dead (Expunged)

2. Kamdeo Poddar

3. Ramdeo Poddar

All sons of Late Baijnath Poddar, all residents of village –Harkatta, P.O.

–Deoghar, P.S. –Mohanpur, District –Deoghar

....

....

.... Respondents

4. Shyamdeo Poddar, Son of Late Baijnath Poddar, Resident of village –

Harkatta, P.O. –Deoghar, P.S. –Mohanpur, District –Deoghar

5. Manoj Poddar, Son of Panchu Poddar, Resident of Village –Harkatta,

P.O. –Deoghar, P.S. –Mohanpur, District –Deoghar

....

....

.... Proforma Respondents

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

By the Court:-

1.

Heard the parties.

2.

This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure

has been filed against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by

the Additional District Judge -V, Deoghar, in Title Appeal No. 73 of

2003 on 16.12.2014 whereby and where under, the learned first

appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial

court being the court of Sub-Judge –II, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 70 of

2 S.A. No. 99 of 2015

1996 dated 15.09.2003 whereby and where under, the learned trial

court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs filed with a prayer for

declaration that no adoption of the defendant no.1 has ever taken

place on 09.02.1981 by Dashrath Poddar and his wife Mula Devi and

to declare the Adoption Deed No. 87 of 1981 of Deoghar Sub Registry

Office executed by Dashrath Poddar and Mula Devi is a bogus, illegal

and fabricated document and not binding upon the plaintiffs, costs of

the suit and other reliefs.

3.

The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs and

their uncle Dashrath Poddar are descendants of the common ancestor

namely Daulat Poddar. Dashrath Poddar died issueless in the state of

jointness with the plaintiffs on 29/30.06.1991 and his wife Mula Devi

predeceased him. Upon the death of Dashrath Poddar, the joint

interest in the said properties devolved upon the surviving

coparceners/plaintiffs. On the death of Dashrath Poddar, the last rites

and Mukhagini Sanskar had been performed by the plaintiff no.1 –

Sibeshwar Poddar and the Shradh was also performed by the

plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been coming in actual peaceful and

physical cultivating possession of the land including the interest of

Dashrath Poddar. The plaintiffs received a notice in a p