Govind Ram v Amhada Ram and another
Rajasthan High Court
JAIPUR BENCH
18 February 2013
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.4.05 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Civi Suit No. 180/03 (Old No. 16/03), whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed by the trial court.
2. The appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking declaration that he was the adopted son of the respondents. According to the appellant, since the respondents did not have any issue on 6.3.76 his natural father Megha Ram had given the appellant-plaintiff in adoption to the respondents after performing the requisite ceremonies. It was also the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the respondents had performed even his marriage ceremony on 22.5.91 and the name of the appellant was also shown in the Ration Card as well as the BPL Card. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants denying the allegations and averments made in the plaint and it was further contended that the appellant-plaintiff was never adopted by the respondents. It was also contended that the documents of Ration Card and BPL Card were forged by the appellant with a view to grab the property of the respondents-defendants. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit of the appellant herein, against which the present appeal has been filed.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the suit. He further submitted that from the documents namely Ration Card, BPL Card etc. it is clearly established that the appellant was taken in adoption by the respondents.
4. However the learned counsel Mr. B.B. Ojha for the respondents has submitted that the trial court having fully appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the suit, the decree does not call for any interference.
5. In the instant case, it appears that the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th April,05 was sought to be challenged before this court by filing the appeal, which remained pending for about seven years without any substantive progress. From the judgment and decree passed by the trial court it clearly transpires that the respondents i.e. the alleged adoptive father and mother of the appellant had categorically denied that the appellant was taken in adoption by them as alleged by the appellant.
The appellant had failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence before the trial court that he was taken in adoption by the respondents-defendants after following the ceremonies under the Hindu Law. The trial court having rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
6. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
