JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.32/2012, whereby learned trial court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. Facts of the case are that plaintiff and respondent No.11 jointly filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) claiming themselves to be owners of the suit properties being natural successors of deceased Smt Lalita Devi and Late Shri Gopi Chand. Respondent No.1-defendant (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) claimed himself to be sole owner of the suit properties on the basis of Will dated 10.09.1996 of Smt Vimla Devi and stating himself to be adopted son of Smt Vimla Devi. 3. Trial court has framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get permanent injunction against defendants to the effect that neither they should not mortgage, sale, gift, transfer, destroy the suit property as mentioned in para 8 of the plaint in favour of any person, company, institution and in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 7 nor to get it done from others? (2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get mandatory injunction to the effect that defendant Nos.2 to 7 should not pay rent of the suit property to defendant No.1 and either pay the same directly to plaintiffs or deposit the same in the Court? (3) Whether plaintiffs are legitimate children of Gopi Chand Ji. Late Gopi Chand had not executed any Will and in the year 1972 as he was unable to execute any will? (4) Whether Smt Vimla Devi Tholia had adopted Neeraj Jain younger son of her younger brother Nirmal Kumar Jain by registered adoption deed, so defendant is the absolute owner of all movable and immovable property of Late Sh. Prakash Chand Jain and Smt. Vimla Devi? (5) Relief? 4. In order to prove his case, plaintiffs examined PW1-Asha Sanghi, PW2-Jitendra, PW3-Naresh and exhibited some documents. Defendants examined DW1-Neeraj, DW2-Nirmal Kumar, DW3- Hemlata, DW4-Mahendra Kumar and exhibited some documents. Trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties and hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. (5) Relief? 4. In order to prove his case, plaintiffs examined PW1-Asha Sanghi, PW2-Jitendra, PW3-Naresh and exhibited some documents. Defendants examined DW1-Neeraj, DW2-Nirmal Kumar, DW3- Hemlata, DW4-Mahendra Kumar and exhibited some documents. Trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties and hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the judgment dated 10.12.2019 passed by the trial court is contrary to the facts as well as law and liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the defendant No.1 failed to prove the will dated 13.09.1978 executed by Sh. Gopi Chand in favour of Prakash Chand. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the said will was not proved according to law. So, plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the properties of Late Gopi Chand. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that defendant No.1 relied on will executed by Smt Vimla Devi on 10.09.1996 but said will was not proved as per law. Smt Vimla Devi was not absolute owner of the properties. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that as per contention of the defendant No.1, he was adopted by Smt Vimla Devi on 12.09.1997 but adoption deed was registered on 04.03.2000. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that no adoption ceremony took place. So, giving and taking ceremony was not conducted. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that at the time of registration of adoption deed, defendant No.1 was 17 years old, so legally he could not be adopted. So, adoption deed is void ab initio. Finding of the trial court that plaintiffs had not challenged the adoption deed and Will is contrary to the fact because there is no need to challenge the void adoption deed. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial court wrongly drew the presumption of Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that plaintiffs had adduced ample evidence to rebut the fact that defendant No.1 was never adopted and will was never proved by him. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the trial court wrongly drew the presumption of Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that plaintiffs had adduced ample evidence to rebut the fact that defendant No.1 was never adopted and will was never proved by him. So, judgment of the trial court be set aside. 6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Jai Singh Vs. Shakuntala reported in 2002 (3) SCC 634 ; (2) Sahodora Bai (deceased) (Smt.) throguh LRs VS. Satya Prakash Mahajan & Anr. reported in 2018 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 305; (3) Madhusudan Das Vs. Smt. Narayani Bai & Ors. reported in 1983 (1) SCC 35 ; (4) Deepsingh Vs. Sarwansingh reported in 1951 RLW (Raj.) 160; (5) Budharam Vs. Beerbal reported in 1954 RLW (Raj.) 608 and (6) Basanti Bai (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Sheela Bai reported in 2019 (3) MPWN 34 . 7. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs because plaintiffs had filed the injunction suit and they had not challenged the validity of will and adoption deed. Defendant No.1 had proved the adoption deed by adducing the evidence of his natural father, mother and attesting witnesses of so-called adoption deed. Learned counsel for the defendants also submitted that the trial court rightly drew the presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. So, present appeal be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mst. Deu Ors. Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2227/1982 decided on 01.08.1996. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 10. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs had filed the injunction suit but they had not challenged the so-called will and adoption deed. Defendant No.1 by way of evidence, proved his adoption and the trial court rightly drew presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 that adoption deed is according to law. Defendant No.1 had proved the adoption deed by adducing evidence of his natural father, mother and attesting witnesses. Defendant No.1 by way of evidence, proved his adoption and the trial court rightly drew presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 that adoption deed is according to law. Defendant No.1 had proved the adoption deed by adducing evidence of his natural father, mother and attesting witnesses. So, in my considered opinion, trial court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.