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