Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 589
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Vishnu Kumar Gupta, adopted S/o. Hazari Lal - Appellant
Versus
Suresh, S/o. Kedar – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 380 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Application to bring on record a document that is already on record during the trial is without merit (Para 19).
(C) Civil Law - Proof of Adoption - A recital in a document executed by the party seeking to prove adoption is an admission in their own favor and cannot be considered valid or conclusive proof of adoption unless specific evidence of the ceremony of giving and taking is available on record (Para 20).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be the adopted son of the parents of the respondent. The defendants denied the factum of adoption. During the trial, official documents such as the ration card and electoral roll listed the plaintiff's father as a person other than the alleged adoptive father. The plaintiff admitted that no adoption ceremonies were performed and no photographs were taken. The plaintiff relied on a sale deed executed by himself to prove the adoption.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the factum of adoption or possession of the suit property. Additionally, the death of the primary defendant during the pendency of the suit rendered the relief sought infructuous. The concurrent findings of the two lower courts were found to be based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding the failure to prove adoption were perverse and whether a substantial question of law existed to warrant interference in a second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved; it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which findings of fact were arrived at by the first appellate court unless such findings are perverse. Furthermore, self-serving recitals in a deed executed by the claimant do not constitute conclusive proof of adoption without evidence of the actual ritual of giving and taking.
Result: Present second appeal fails, and is hereby dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr. Madhusudan Purohit.
For the Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma.
Order :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
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 plaintiff/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:-
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:-
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 regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereafter, the learned Appellate Court while re-endorsing the finding of the Learned Court below, dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant.
11. Being aggrieved with the concurrent finding arrived at by both the Courts below, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present second appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the legal effect of the sale deed (Ex. A-2) which was jointly executed by the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent No.1- Smt. Kasturi Devi wherein the appellant has described as adoptive son of Hazari Lal, therefore, both the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the suit while observing that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove adoption in his favour. He also submits that the plaintiff/appellant had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for placing on record a sale deed; he accordingly, prays that both the judgment and decree may be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed in terms of claim relief therein.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the said submissions and submits that from bare perusal of the relief claimed in the suit, it is evident that after the death of Smt. Kasturi Devi on 10.01.2014, no cause of action survives for consideration. He further submits that from the various admissions made by the appellant during course of cross- examination, it is well proved that the appel
