[2026:RJ-JP:9571]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 380/2025 Vishnu Kumar Gupta adopted S/o Hazari Lal, aged About 49 Years, R/o Balahedi, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa ----Appellant Versus Suresh S/o Kedar, R/o Main Market Balahedi, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

06/03/2026

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa in Civil Regular Appeal No.19/2020 (CIS No.38/2020) confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa in Civil Suit No.38/2012, whereby both the learned Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintitff/appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that in the year 2011, the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction while claiming himself to be the adopted son of defendant/respondent No.1- Smt. Kasturi Devi and late Sh. Hazari Lal and in the said suit, the plaintiff/appellant sought the following reliefs:-

¼v½ ;g gS fd nkok oknh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk cjf[kykQ izfroknhx.k bl vej ls fMdzh Qjek;k tkos fd okn i= ds lkFk layxu utjh uD'kk esa iznf'kZr yky jax ls ,-ch-lh-Mh ekdZ ls nf'kZr iq[rk nqdku] edku] ukSgjk] oknh o izfroknh ua- 1 dh la;qDr [kkrsnkjh ds fgLls dk gS uk rks izfrokfn;k la- 1 vdsyh gh oknh dh fcuk lgefr ds izfroknhx.k ua- 2 yxk;r 7 dks fdlh Hkh izdkj jgu c; djsaA uk gh utjh uD'kk esa ykyjax ls nf'kZr nqdku o edku ukSgjk ls oknh dks csn[ky djsA uk gh Lo;a djsa uk gh fdlh vU;

ls djkosA ¼c½ ;g gS fd [kpkZ eqdnek oknh] izfroknhx.k ij vk;n Qjek;k tkosA ¼l½ ;g gS fd vU; nhxj nknjlh tks djhus balkQ cgd oknh gks vrk iznku djsaA

3. Upon service of notice, the defendant/respondent No.1- Smt. Kasturi Devi filed a written statement on 14.02.2012 and categorically denied the factum of adoption, and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Similarly the other defendants also filed their respective written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 15.10.2014:-

1- vk;k izfrokfn;k la[;k ,d o mlds ifr us oknh dks nkok nk;jh ds 15 o"kZ iwoZ xksn fy;kA izfrokfn;k la[;k ,d ds ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn oknh ,oa izfroknh la[;k ,d py o vpy lEifRr 'kkfey esa gS \

2- vk;k okn of.kZr nqdku edku ukSgjk utjh uD'kk esa ,chlhMh dks izfrokfn;k la[;k ,d izfroknh la[;k 2 ls 7 dks cspku u djus o oknh dks csn[ky u djus ckcr~ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djokus dh vf/kdkjh gS \

3- vk;k oknh us vkns'k 27 fu;e 5, dk ikyu ugha fd;k ,oa okn dkj.k iSnk ugha gksus ls okn iks"k.kh; ugha gS \

4- vuqrks"k \

6. Thereafter, in order to substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant examined Vishnu Kumar (PW-1) and produced Site plan (Ex. A-1), Sale deed (Ex. A-2) as documentary evidence.

7. The defendant examined Suresh (DW-1), Rameshwar Meena (DW-2), Ramkhiladi Thathera (DW-3), Jasram Meena (DW-4) and Santosh (DW-5) and produced the Electoral Roll (Ex. D-1), Family Ration Card- Vishnu Kumar (Ex. D-2) and an agreement (Ex. D-3).

8. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the present suit, the defendant No.1- Smt. Kasturi Devi expired on

10.01.2014 and her name was deleted.

9. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court after hearing arguments of the parties, dismissed the suit while observing that since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit shop and has failed to prove any valid right based on alleged adoption, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled for any decree of permanent injunction; and accordingly dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2015.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the plaintiff/appellant filed reg