RSA No. 3460 of 2009 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3460 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.03.2011. Mohd. Idrish .......Appellant Vs. Akram Ali & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the adoption deed dated 30.4.2001 executed by Rehman Khan in favour of Akram Ali. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff and defendants were related to each other. Defendant No.3 had no male issue and the property in his hands was ancestral in nature. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 were likely to succeed the property of defendant No.3 after his death. Defendant No.2, however, had an evil eye on the property of defendant No.3 and got a collusive decree in his favour. The said decree dated 27.10.1987 was challenged by the plaintiff by filing a suit. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.2 got executed an adoption deed dated 23.2.1988, whereby Rehman Khan was shown to have adopted Jakir Hussain son of Mohd. RSA No. 3460 of 2009 - 2- Yusuf (defendant No.2). The said adoption deed was also challenged by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed on 11.1.1999 and the decree in favour of defendant No.2 as well as adoption deed dated 23.2.1988 were set aside. The appeal filed by defendant No.2 and Jakir Hussain was dismissed. Thereafter, Mohd. Yusuf got an adoption deed executed on 30.4.2001 from Rehman Khan in favour of Akram Ali defendant No.1, who is the son of Jakir Hussain. The said adoption deed was a mere paper transaction and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 was proceeded ex parte. Defendants No. 1 and 3, in their written statement, averred that plaintiff was residing separately with his family in another village. It was denied that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of Rehman Khan. Akram Ali had been adopted by defendant No.3 vide adoption deed dated 30.4.2001. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the adoption deed executed & registered on 30.4.2001 by Rehman Khan- defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1- Akram Ali, is illegal, void, nonest against the custom of parties and not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiff ?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi & cause of action to file the present suit? OPD RSA No. 3460 of 2009 - 3- 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act, conduct etc.? OPD 5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2008, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by the plaintiff, by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The present case relates to dispute qua property of Rehman Khan defendant No.3. Admittedly, Rehman Khan did not have a male child. Since, Rehman Khan was only having daughters, Rehman Khan defendant No.3 adopted Akram Ali defendant No.1, minor son of Jakir Hussain. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the adoption deed in question was duly executed. The defendants, in order to establish the adoption deed (Ex.P-3), proved on record photographs regarding the adoption ceremonies. After the adoption of defendant No.1 by defendant No.3, the deed was submitted for registration. Scribe of the adoption deed was examined as DW-1. Defendant No. 3 appeared in the witness box as DW2 and claimed that he had adopted defendant No.1 as his son and necessary ceremonies were performed in this regard. RSA No. 3460 of 2009 - 4- The adoption of Jakir Hussain by defendant No.3 was not considered to be a valid one by the civil court and thereafter, adoption deed in question was executed. The attesting witness to the adoption deed was examined as DW-3. Chowkidar of the village was examined as DW-4 to prove the formalities of adoption. Merely because the adoption deed, vide which defendant No.3 had adopted Jakir Hussain, was set aside is no ground to discard the adoption deed in question (Ex.P-3). Defendant No. 3 also purchased land in the name of defendant No.1, wherein defendant No.1 was described as son of defendant No.3. The sale deed (Ex.DW-2/G) was registered at the instance of defendant No.3. The defendants also proved on record the school certificate, wherein Akram Ali defendant No.1 was shown to be the son of defendant No.3 Rehman Khan. Akram Ali was also described as adopted son of Rehman Khan in the ration card. A public notice was also given in the newspaper qua adoption of defendant No.1 by defendant No.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out that defendant No.1 was not capable of being taken in adoption at the time of execution of the adoption deed (Ex.P-3) or that defendant No.3 was not capable of taking in adoption defendant No.1 at the time of execution of adoption deed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 31, 2011 Gurpreet