HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTlSGARHATBtLASPUR Single_Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellarrt Dsfehdant No.1 wMm ResBondents •^-^' •-r 4* S.A.No.l 80/2008 Basant 1-al S/6 Bhagwat Yadav, (Anant Ram? Yadav), aged abpyt 38 years, Resident of Village Newari Kala, Tahsil Balod, Distriet Durg (C.G.):::. . .:• ! ;." Versus 1. Anant Ram, aged^about 66 years, S/o }]ate HaTinath?Yadav, ' 2: Ashokraged'about 41 years^S/o Late Bt'iuwan Lal Yaday, • 3. Kdushal, aged about 36 years, S/o LateBhuwan LaiYadav, 4. Satdw, aged about 21 years^ S/o Late Bfiuwan Lal Yadav, 5. Smt;OulabBai,agedabout61years, wjcipwofLalBBhuwanLalYadav, All resideht of Village Nswari Kate, TahsiiBakid; DistrictDurg(G.G^ 6. KumaftBai, agedabout43years,Wp iBharat Yadav, Resident of Vitlage Bliandera, Tahsil Doundi Lohara, DistrictDurg (C.G^ 7. Smt. Lata Bai, aged about 20 years, VWo Hari Yadav, Resjdent of Village Basantpur, Near Phirantin Mandire, Rajnanclgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 8. Btate of CKhattisgarh, Through Cotle(itor,Durg,DistrictDurg(C.G.) Secon(lADDealunderSecti6n1(X)ofeivilProcedure_Coae. :Present::- \':1 ! • -,::.-,/;.: -','•. :• •• Shri Vishnu Koshta, counselfortheappellant. ©RAL.QiRDER {Passe(lon1:his2dthdaybfAugust,2008) Heard on admission. (2) .Theappellanydefericlant^iSiaggn^ed^bxthejuSgfnent^aiTdxlecte® dated 29-11 -2006 passed by the ^el||iQnal pstriGt?Judge, (F^ 'Di^ict Durg jn'©iwlAppeaK I^Q^%^(@O^ decres dated Q5-08-200Zpasse<f^A.i@^iauage Glass^^^ Qurg in^GivilSuitNo.46-AjQ004?vi^ei'iiy'|Beil^sp^dents/pfajntip.'^i^^ liai 2— declafation oftitleand permanent injunction in relation to thesuit land was decreed. - ST- i:t ^ (3) Appellant/defendant had resisted the suit on the ground that he is the adopted son of Bhagwat Yadav.It is not in dispute that at the time of execution of adoption deed Ex.D-1, age of the appellanVdefendant was more than 15 years. Both theCourts below have held that sinee the appellant/defehdant did n6t plead or prove custom or usage regarding a person having eompleted the age of15years being taken in adoption, the appellant/defendant had Tailed to prove the factum of adoptibn.;0h these premises, both the Courts belbw have rejected the deferiee of the appellant/defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. (4) I have perused the impugned judgment and deeree and the judgment and decree passed by ttie trial Gourt as also the record. The sole ground urged by learned cQUhse) for the appellanf/defendant in this appea! isthat the appellanVdefendant has suecessfulty established that he is the adoptedson of Bhagwat Yadav. u ^- (5) Theappellant/defendantdidnotspecificallyplead thatthere was a customor usage prevalent between the parties which permitted a person being taken in adoption who completed the age of15 ysars. !n this vjew of the matter, both the Courts below have on proper appreciation of evidence oral aswell as documentary rightly rejected the defence of the appellant/defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the respondentfplaintiff. lam of the considered opinion that no substantial question oflaw is involved in this appeal. (6) In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. I.A.No.1 and I.A.No.2,applications under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C.; for execution of stay of judgment and decree stand disposed of. Sd/- DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane