Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramning Ganesh Goankar, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khanapur, in R.A. No.179/2008, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2005 of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Khanapur, in O.S. No.73/1999. The suit was filed by the appellant (plaintiff) for declaration that he is the adopted son of defendant No.1 (Ganesh Mukund Goankar) and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession over suit properties bearing R.S. Nos.114, 124 and house G.P.C. No.215 in Amate Village. The plaintiff claimed he was adopted on 08.03.1977 under a registered adoption deed and had been in possession since then. He alleged that defendant Nos.2 and 3 (Jafarulla Hamid Mulla and Mehaboob Abdul Haji), who are Muslims and strangers, created bogus documents and colluded with defendant No.1 to grab the properties. The defendants denied the adoption and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove valid adoption as per Hindu rites and customs, and that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff did not prove possession within 12 years prior to filing. The first appellate court affirmed. In the second appeal, the High Court found no substantial question of law, as the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Adoption - Proof of Adoption - Sections 6, 11, 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Plaintiff claimed to be adopted son of defendant No.1 based on registered adoption deed dated 08.03.1977 - Courts below held that plaintiff failed to prove valid adoption as per Hindu rites and customs, and the adoption deed was not proved in accordance with law - Held that mere registration of adoption deed is not sufficient; actual giving and taking of child is essential (Paras 8-10). B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit filed in 1999 for declaration of title and injunction based on adoption of 1977 - Courts below held that suit was barred by limitation as plaintiff failed to prove possession within 12 years prior to suit - Held that plaintiff must prove possession within limitation period (Paras 11-12). C) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - No substantial question of law arises when concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence - Held that High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved his adoption and possession within limitation to claim declaration and injunction against defendants?
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adoption must be strictly proved under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- 1956
- Burden of proof on plaintiff
- Limitation for declaration of title and injunction
- Article 65 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
