IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 493 of 2018 Pawan Rout, aged about 54 years, son of Soudagar Rout, resident of village Dhanor, P.O. Dhanor, P.S. – Ramgarh, District – Dumka … … Defendant 1^st party/Respondent/Appellant Versus

1. Shanti Kumrain, wife of late Khakhani, @ Chandan Kumar, village of Dhanor, P.O. Dhanor, P.S. – Ramgarh, District –

Dumka

2. Kundan Kumar, adopted son of Khakhani @ Chandan Kumar and Shanti Kumrain, minor, represented through her adopted mother Shanti Kumrain Both residents of village Dhanor P.O. Dhanor, P.S. Ramgarh, District – Dumka .. .. Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents

3. (a) Jhumki Devi, D/o Soudagar Raout, W/o Kartik Manjhi, R/o Lakrbank, P.O. lakrbank P.S. Hasdiha District Godda (b) Lilawati Devi D/o Soudagar Raout W/o Angreji Mnjhi R/o Chihutiya, P.S. P.O. Hasdiha District Godda (c) Pratima Dev, D/o Soudagar Raout W/o Staynarayan Darve R/o Mahuwa P.O. Nonihat P.S. Jarmundi District Dumka (d) Ashok Rout S/o Soudagar Raout R/o Gannor P.O. badi ranbhiyar P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh District Dumka

4. Hunani Rautain, aged about 65 years, wife of Soudagar Rout, resident of village Dhanor, P.O. Dhanor, P.S. Ramgarh, District – Dumka … … Defendant 2^nd Parties/Respondents/Proforma Respondents ---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate ---

17/24.01.2025 Lastly heard on 21.01.2025 This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2018 (decree signed on 05.10.2018) passed by learned District Judge – I, Dumka in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2012 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012 (decree signed on 02.08.2012) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge – I, Dumka in Title Suit No.03 of 2008 has been reversed. The learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. The defendant no.1 is the appellant before this Court.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated

13.06.2023 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality by ignoring the fact that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation?

2. Whether the learned First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact the plaintiff no. 2, could not have been arrayed as such, when the plaintiff no. 1 was making the prayer for cancellation of adoption of defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff no. 2, has no other right except that he is one of the adopted son of plaintiff no. 1?

3. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality by raising doubts over the execution of Exhibit B/1, even though, the execution of the same, is not disputed by the executant thereof?"

Arguments of the Appellant/Defendant

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph 2 of the trial court’s judgment to submit that the entire case of the plaintiff has been narrated therein. He has submitted that the specific case of the plaintiff was that the defendant no.2 is a Mahajan of the locality, a property grabber. The plaintiff no.1 and the defendants had come to Dumka Registry office on 25.06.1975 for execution of bhugabandha (mortgage) deed. However, with a view to grab the land of the plaintiff no.1 (Shanti Kumrain) the defendant no.2 fraudulently manufactured a deed of adoption in favour of his son Pawan Rout (defendant no.1). After some time, the defendant no.2 told the plaintiff no.1 about the adoption deed and on inquiry the plaintiff no.1 learnt about the matter on 18.08.1975. Then the plaintiff no.1 executed a deed of cancellation of adoption deed no.478/1975 dated 23.06.1975 before the Registry Office, Dumka. The cause of action for the suit arose on 12.09.2007 the date on which the defendants claimed adoption before the police officer of Ramgarh based on the alleged adoption deed no.478/1975. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendant’s adoption deed was fo