Regular Second Appeal No. 1224 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1224 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.3.2009 *** Roop Chand .. Appellant VS. Smt. Santa & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession. The plaintiff, claiming himself to be the adopted son of Kishan Lal filed the suit and laid challenge to the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1994 passed in favour of defendant No.1 Smt. Santa, the real sister of Kishan Lal and consequent mutation No. 1328 entered in her favour as also to the sale-deeds dated 25.3.1996 and 28.1.1997 by dint of which defendant No.1 sold 12 kanal and 9 kanal 17 marlas of land to defendants No.2 to 4 and 5, 6 respectively, on the ground that the plaintiff, who was adopted by Kishan Lal as his son in the year 1982 was not made party to the suit, wherein the impugned judgment and decree was passed, which even was an un-registered document and in his presence, defendant No.1 was not competent to effect the said transactions. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside the same and sought possession of the suit land. The case of defendant No.1 was that the plea of the plaintiff of Regular Second Appeal No. 1224 of 2008 2 his being adopted son of Kishan Lal is vague. Rather Kishan Lal, who was unmarried, renounced this world and become Baba and he is not heard for the last many years. Therefore, being the legal representative of Kishan Lal she filed the suit for declaration in respect of his property impleading Kishan Lal as well as General Public as party therein, but none came forward to contest the case. Ultimately, the said judgment and decree was passed in favour, leading to further entry of mutation in her favour. She further sold out the land to the defendants legally, being lawful owner. Defendants No.2 to 6 took the plea that the sale-deeds dated 25.3.1996 and 28.1.1997 have been executed by defendant No.1 for consideration. The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court below disbelieved the version of the plaintiff and dismissed his suit as well as his appeal. Hence this regular second appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal arises for determination in this appeal. The whole claim of the plaintiff revolves around the plea of his adoption by Kishan Lal in the year 1982 and further acknowledge in the year 1998 vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 2.11.1998. To prove the plea of adoption, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove cogent and convincing evidence that give and take ceremony had taken place as per the rituals. But it emerges out from the records that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of the same by adducing clinching and reliable evidence. None of the witnesses who were produced by him in support of his plea of adoption, hailed from his own village, rather from other villages and that too closely related to the plaintiff and their testimonies were found not inspiring any confidence. The plaintiff failed to produce any person from the village of Kishan Lal in support of his said plea. Even the revenue record as well as school certificate pertaining to the year 1989-90 reflected the name of father of plaintiff as Sukhi, in whose property also the plaintiff received the share by virtue of judgment and decree passed in the year 1991, although the plaintiff claimed himself to be adopted by Kishan Lal in the year 1982, leading to the conclusion that the said adoption was not acted upon. Once the plaintiff failed to prove that he was ever adopted by Kishan Lal, it was rightly held that defendant No.1 Regular Second Appeal No. 1224 of 2008 3 being the sister of Kishan Lal had become lawful owner of his property by virtue of judgment and decree dated 26.11.994, which too was prior in time than the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1998 and having not binding effect on defendant No.1, the plaintiff has no right to claim validity thereof. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 27,2009 Jiten