This second appeal challenged the dismissal of a title suit where the plaintiff relied on an alleged adoption to inherit property. The High Court upheld the lower courts' conclusion, noting the failure to prove adoption ceremonies and lack of title.
The appeal was dismissed without any costs as it was found to be without merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.63 of 2018
(Against the Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
------
.... .... …. Appellants Versus
... .... …. Respondent
------ For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of concurrence, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal after finding that there is no need to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.188 of 2009 dated 16.10.2015 whereby and where under, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on contest, filed with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land which stands recorded in the name of her adopted mother Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali and confirmation of his possession over the suit land and permanent injunction, cost of the suit and any other reliefs.
3 The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali wife of Bakharia Narmali in the record of right finally published in the year 1964 and she constructed the houses and other structures over the suit land and cultivated the remaining portion of the suit land. Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali was also an employee of TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur. Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali was issueless and was leaving with her nephews (brother’s son). The land measuring 12 decimals under khata no.88, plot no.728 and 729 were recorded in the name of original plaintiff- Mahabir Sonkar and on the basis of inheritance; he used to pay rent in respect of the suit land. It is further
2
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
the case of the plaintiffs that the original plaintiff- Mahabir Sonkar was adopted by Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali and her husband on 05.02.1954 while he was aged 5 years and all the usual and necessary ceremonies for such adoption were duly performed on 05.02.1954 in the house of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali and her husband Bakharia Sonkar. The adopted parents executed a formal deed of adoption to avoid and remove doubts on 13.03.1981 in presence of witnesses. After execution of the deed of adoption, Bakharia Sonkar died and subsequently, Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali also died leaving behind the original plaintiff- Mahabir Sonkar as the only legal heir and successor. The defendants tried to disturb the peaceful physical possession of the original plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the original plaintiff, defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 are his nephews. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that eldest brother of the original plaintiff i.e. Jagarlal was the nephew of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali and the said Jagarlal was employed in TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur on the strength of service of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali by pretending himself as the son-in-law of late Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali, as his wife-Sugwati was the daughter of late Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali. The relationship between Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali and Jagarlal as mother-in-law and son-in-law has been entered into the record of TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur though Sugwati is the wife of Manrakhan Lal as she deposed in a G.R. Case on 23.11.1985 describing herself as the wife of Manrakhan Lal. Jagarlal died in the
3
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
month of March, 2005 leaving behind the defendants as his only legal
heirs and successors. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the said reliefs.
4 The defendants in their written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. They pleaded that the plaintiffs has no manner of right, title or possession over the suit property within 12 years from the date of filing of the suit. They pleaded that Sukhabati Devi was the daughter of Rambati and they are daughter and grandchildren of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali. They denied that Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali adopted the original plaintiff and the adoption deed is fraudulent, collusive and manufactured piece of documents.
5 On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the following ten issues were settled by the trial court:-
4
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
6 Learned trial court considered the evidence in the record i.e.
the oral testimonies of the seven witness examined by the plaintiffs and the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to 6/e as well as the oral testimony of witnesses examined by the defendants and the document which has been marked Ext. A.
7 The learned trial court first took up issue no. (VI) and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the original plaintiff is the adopted son of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos. (V), (VII) and (VIII) together and came to the conclusion that since the original plaintiff is not the adopted son of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali hence, he has not got any property by way of inheritance and does not have any right, title and interest over the land hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for confirmation of possession over the suit land. Then the learned trial court took up issue no. (IX) and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction as they have no prima facie case or balance of convenience. The learned trial court thereafter took up issue nos. (III) and (IV) together and disposed of the same as not pressed. The learned trial court thereafter took up issue nos. (I) and (II) together and held that the suit is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for the suit. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. (X) and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any other relief and dismissed the suit.
5
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
the court of Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment.
9 The learned first appellate court formulated the following
points for determination:-
10 The learned first appellate court jointly took up both the points for determinations together and after considering the evidence in the record and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishori Lal vs. Chaltibai [1959] (Supp) 1 SCR 698 as also the case of A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma reported in 1964 AIR 136, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India settled the principle of law that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity held that as the original plaintiff failed to prove the natural ceremony of adoption by not brining any evidence in this regard hence, it disbelieved the adoption and consequently, did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
11 Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have committed a perversity by not considering the rent receipts filed by the plaintiffs in respect of 12 decimals of land which they claim to have inherited from Rambati Bai
6
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
@ Rambati Narmali. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that both the courts below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha that both the courts below have committed perversity by not relying upon the unregistered deed of adoption. It is then submitted by Mr. Sinha that both the courts below have failed to consider the certificate issued by Sarpanch which has been marked Ext. 3/a and 5. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs by allowed by formulating appropriate substantial question of law.
12 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a person who claims title on the basis of adoption must proof the adoption and it has to be established that the essential ceremony of giving and taking did take place.
7
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
Rambati Narmali finds place undisputedly. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the give and take ceremony of adoption.
15 After going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court was not done by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material. Nor the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court being the final court of facts outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse.
16 In the absence of any perversity of the finding of facts of both the courts below, since the original plaintiff has failed to establish that he is adopted son of Rambati Bai @ Rambati Narmali certainly, the question of inheritance of him does not arise.
17 So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the revenue receipts are concerned, the appellants have failed to put forth as to on what basis the said revenue receipts was issued. There is no mutation order brought on record or any other document brought on record to show on what basis the rent receipts were issued.
18 Since the plaintiffs’ claims the inheritance based on his adoption rights but they have failed to establish the same, I do not find any illegality committed by both the courts below in not decreeing the confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, in the absence of any title or evidence of possession of the plaintiffs except the rent receipts that too, without the explanation as to on what basis are rent receipts were obtained.
8
Second Appeal No. 63 of 2018
19 Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs.
20 Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th April, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-
9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal is meritorious when the appellant failed to prove the factum of adoption necessary to establish title by inheritance?
Whether the finding of fact regarding the invalid adoption is perverse based on the evidence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishori Lal vs. ChaltibaiExplained¶60
Kishori Lal vs. Chaltibai [1959] (Supp) 1 SCR 698 · Who else cites this
A. Raghavamma v. A. ChenchammaExplained¶60
A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma 1964 AIR 136 · Who else cites this
A. Raghavamma v. A. ChenchammaExplained¶69
A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Gautarhin Sonker and others
Kaushalya Devi and others
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court