Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Whether the present Cross Objection filed by the respondents is maintainable when they failed to re-present the earlier Cross Objection filed by them ?

13. The learned counsel for the appellants/respondents in Cross Objection contended that -

(a) Originally the respondents filed suit for declaration that adoption deed dated 11.09.1995 is null and void and not binding on them and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the plaint was amended deleting the relief of declaration in respect of adoption deed. The respondents are claiming only permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties.

(d) After the death of their two sons in the year 1989 and 1994, the respondents adopted first appellant as their daughter on 11.09.1995 before the family deity, in the presence of priests and other witnesses as per the usage and custom of their community. The first appellant is daughter of sister-in-law of first respondent. At the time of adoption, the first appellant was 21 years. As per the custom and usage of the community of the appellants and respondents, a person can be adopted even if she or he is more than 15 years. As per Section 10 (4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, there is an exemption for adoption of a person aged more than 15 years, if custom and usage of the community to which adoptive parents and the person who gives child in adoption belong. The respondents executed an adoption deed which was registered on 20.09.1995 and marked as Ex.A.15. The respondents have not taken any steps to cancel the adoption deed Ex.A.15. They have also not filed any suit for declaration that the said adoption deed is null and void, within three years of adoption and deed of adoption as per Article 59 of Limitation Act.

(g) The respondents filed suit after 12 years of the adoption and deed of adoption for declaration that the adoption deed is null and void and for permanent injunction. The first appellant filed written statement and other appellants adopted the same. In the written statement, appellants have stated that the adoption is valid and suit for declaration is barred by limitation. They also contended that the suit properties are ancestral properties.

(h) The respondents amended the plaint by filing I.A.No.470 of 2009 and as per the order passed in the said Interlocutory Application, prayer for declaration was deleted. The respondents having deleted the prayer, did not delete the averments with regard to adoption. The learned Trial Judge framed issues with regard to adoption but did not give any finding.

Substantial question of law No.2

23. Initially the respondents filed suit for declaration that adoption deed is null and void and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, they deleted the prayer for declaration and retained the prayer for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the respondents, by mistake they adopted the first appellant on 11.09.1995 contrary to provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The said adoption is invalid as there is no custom to adopt a person aged more than 15 years. On 11.09.1995, the first appellant was aged 21 years. In view of adoption is invalid, the adoption deed dated 20.09.1995 Ex.A15 is void and they have not taken any steps to cancel the adoption deed Ex.A15. They prayed for injunction as appellants tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The appellants, in their written statement contended that as per custom prevailing in their community, adoption of a person aged more than 15 years is valid. The first appellant was taken in adoption as per the custom and usage of their community. The said adoption is valid. The suit for declaration is barred by limitation.