IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajinder Singh and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Smt. Vidya Devi and Another . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 13.01.2026 Pronounced on: 19.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera8ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Background : The defendants of the suit are before this Court in the present second appeal, assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Hisar dated 29.10.1997, whereby the appeal filed by the plain*ff–respondent Smt. Vidya Devi (respondent herein) was ac- cepted; the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court of Sub Judge 1^st Class dismissing the suit were set aside, and the suit for declara*on was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the par*es are being referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The Trial Court record, as available on the DMS, has been perused.

3.1 Admi(cid:16)ed facts : The factual matrix emerging from the record is that one Harchand had three sons, namely Richhpal, Bhagwana and Naurang, besides three daughters, namely Chandrapa*, Lakshmi and Basan*. The plain*ff Smt. Vidya Devi is admi;edly the daughter of Bhagwana, who was married to Smt. Sar* Devi (proforma defendant No.4). Defendant No.2 i.e. Kulwant Rai is the son of Naurang, whereas defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh is the natural son of Kulwant Rai and defendant No.3 Smt. Tarawan*.

3.2 Plain(cid:23)ff’s Case : It is the case set up by the defendants that Rajin- der Singh, the grandson of Naurang, and son of Kulwant Rai and Smt. Tarawan*, was given in adop*on to Bhagwana in November, 1977, and that an adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 was executed and registered in that regard. The said adop*on of Rajinder Singh by Bhagwana forms the core of the dispute and has been specifically challenged by the plain*ff Smt. Vidya Devi.

3.3 Bhagwana was a co-sharer of agricultural land in different Khewats situated in three villages. AAer his death, the suit land owned by him was mu- tated in favour of his widow Smt. Sar*, daughter Smt. Vidya Devi and the al- leged adopted son Rajinder Singh. The plain*ff has assailed these muta*ons as being illegal and void.

3.4 Apart from the above, it is further pleaded that proforma defen- dant No.4 Smt. Sar* had suffered a judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 in Civil Suit No.485 of 1985 in favour of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh, regarding her share in the suit property. Consequent muta*ons in respect of the proper- *es situated in the three villages were also sanc*oned on the basis of the said decree. The plain*ff has challenged the said judgment & decree dated

25.09.1985 as well as the consequent muta*ons.

3.5 The case of the plain*ff is that Rajinder Singh was never legally adopted by Bhagwana. It is pleaded that Bhagwana was an illiterate and simple person and that he was taken to the Tehsil office by Kulwant Rai on the pretext of execu*on of a power of a;orney for management of his agricultural land. It is alleged that under the garb of the said power of a;orney, the adop*on deed was fraudulently got executed. It is further the specific plea of the plain*ff that Smt. Sar*, the wife of Bhagwana, had neither consented to nor par*cipated in the alleged adop*on, rendering the same invalid in law.

3.6 On the basis of these allega*ons, the plain*ff sought a declara*on that the adop*on deed dated 13.11.1981 executed by Bhagwana in favour of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh is illegal, null and void as a result of fraud and misrepresenta*on. Consequen*al relief was also sought declaring the inheri- tance muta*ons in favour of defendant No.1 to be illegal and void. The plain*ff further prayed for seGng aside the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1985 suf- fered by Smt. Sar