Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2549 (RAJ)

Koop Singh v. Goverdhan Singh

2017-11-21

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28.9.2015 passed by the Revenue Board Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No. 4599/2009 whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 2. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 13.5.2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur as well as against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector cum SDO, Bheem, District Rajsamand. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the Assistant Collector-cum-SDO, Bheem, District Rajsamand with a prayer for declaring him Khatedar of ?rd share of the land situated in village Bhundwaas, Tehsil Devgarh and village Sawadari, Tehsil Devgarh while claiming that he being the adopted son of one Suja is entitled for inherent ?rd share of him in the aforementioned land. 4. Before the Assistant Collector-cum-SDO, Bheem, the petitioner has relied upon the adoption deed said to have been executed by late Suja in the year 1978 declaring the petitioner as his adopted son. The Assistant Collector-cum-SDO, Bheem has taken into consideration the said adoption deed and has given his finding that the same is unregistered and the persons whose signatures are there on the adoption deed have not been produced as witnesses to prove the execution of the said adoption deed. 5. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Board Rajasthan have held that when the petitioner has failed to prove the said adoption deed by producing the persons in front of whom the same was written and the persons whose signatures are there on the said adoption deed, the Assistant Collector-cum-SDO, Bheem has not committed any illegality in not relying upon the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner has failed to prove the said adoption deed, whereby late Suja has allegedly adopted the petitioner as his son, by producing cogent and reliable evidence, the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the orders impugned. 7. 7. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.