Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Darbey vs Dara Singh @ Brahmdeo Singh on 3 February, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 238 of 2016
-----
Manoj Darbey ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dara Singh @ Brahmdeo Singh
2. Ramjiwan Singh
3. Sudarshan Darbey
4. Purushottam Darbey
5. Bholi Darbain
6. Loha Singh
7. Pappu Singh
8. Kamdeo Singh
9. Yugan Darbey
10. Ghanshyam Darbey
11. Bijo Darbey
12. Newaji Darbey
13. Keso Darbey
14. Most. Madhu Darbain
15. Mitalal Darbey
16. Dhiraj Darbey
17. Jagdeo Darbey
18. Sub Narayan Darbey. ... Respondent(s).
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
(Through: Video Conferencing)
-----
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): None.
-----
05/03.02.2022: This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the concurrent judgment dated 29.1.2016 and decree dated 9.2.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-III, Dumka in Civil Appeal No. 10/2013 whereby, the District Judge-III, Dumka has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 20.3.2013 and decree dated 11.4.2013 passed by learned Sr. Civil Judge- I, Dumka in Title Suit No. 102/2007, whereby the suit has been dismissed.
2. The appellant- plaintiff preferred the suit being Title Suit No. 102/2007 praying therein for declaration the adoption of Dara Singh @ Brahmdeo Singh null and void as registered adoption deed No. 690 dated 8.8.1970 is null and void and was never acted upon.
3. It is the case of the appellant that by way of fraud, this adoption deed was executed and none of the conditions laid down under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 have been followed. It is further the case of the appellant-plaintiff that three months after the execution of the said adoption registered deed, Most. Hakali Darbeyin executed another registered deed dated 21.11.1970 and cancelled the earlier deed of adoption. It is submitted that the aforesaid fact clearly suggests that the earlier deed of adoption which -2- was executed on 8.8.1970 is absolutely bad and has got no effect and should be cancelled.
4. Heard the appellant. The only ground taken by the appellant is that the adoption is bad and was executed by fraud. It is submitted that both the courts wrongly appreciated the evidence and came to an erroneous conclusion.
5. Both the trial court and the appellate court have concurrently held that the registered deed of adoption, which was executed on 8.8.1970 is valid and the plaintiff's suit for cancelling the deed, by which the adoption was cancelled, is not legal and valid. Further it is clear that a registered deed cannot be nullified by merely executing and registering another deed.
6. As per the Hindu Adoption Act, in terms of Section 16 of the Act, there is presumption of validity of registered adoption deed. Both the courts below have found that no suit has been filed within three years from the execution of the said adoption deed. Further another aspect cannot be lost sight of that the deed of adoption dated 8.8.1970 and is sought to be cancelled by filing a suit in the year 2007 i.e. after more than 33 years from the date of execution of deed of adoption.
7. Part-III of Schedule of Limitation Act deal with the suit in respect of declaration. Article 57 of the Limitation Act deals with the suit, which relates to obtaining a declaration that an alleged adoption deed is invalid or that it never took place. As per Limitation Act the period of limitation is 03 years. This case has been filed after 33 years.
8. In this case, admittedly, it is not the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he got knowledge about the deed of adoption, three years prior to filing a suit rather the appellant-plaintiff knew about the alleged adoption much before that when there were litigations between the parties in the year 1987 also. In that view, it is apparent that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation.
9. The issue is factual and both the court concurrently held that the adoption is valid. This is a question of fact. Thus I find no question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Anu/-CP2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)