JUDGMENT : 1. The present regular appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Original No.28/2007, whereby the suit for declaration, cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Rameshwar Lal and Bheru preferred a suit with the following submissions : (i) That the agricultural land measuring 13.16 bighas and 14.05 bighas was originally of the ownership of Kela Jat who was the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. Kela expired before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect and was survived by his wife Jadav and two daughters namely Shringari and Bagati. All the three descendants of Kela have since expired and the only surviving descendants of Kela are the plaintiffs Rameshwar Lal and Bheru who are the sons of Shringari and Bagati respectively. (ii) One Balu Jat, who was the nephew of Kela, got the revenue entries qua the land in question mutated in his favour on the basis of an alleged adoption by Kela. Balu was never adopted by Kela and therefore, the revenue entries and the mutation got effected by Balu on the basis of the alleged adoption were fraudulent. (iii) That a part of the land in question was subsequently sold vide registered sale deed by Debi son of Balu Jat in favour of his daughter Rukma. Debi had no right over the land in question and therefore, could not have executed any sale deed in favour of any person as Balu, through whom Debi claims to succeed to the property in question, was himself not the rightful owner of the property in question. The property, since the death of Kela, remained in possession of his daughters Shringari and Bagati and subsequently, in possession of the plaintiffs. 3. With the said submissions, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and further that the sale deed executed in favour of Rukma (defendant No.2) by defendant No.1 Debi be declared to be null and void. 4. The written statement to the suit as preferred by the plaintiffs was filed by defendants No.1 and 2 and it was submitted that Balu was adopted by Kela after following the due process and was by all means, the adopted son of Kela. 4. The written statement to the suit as preferred by the plaintiffs was filed by defendants No.1 and 2 and it was submitted that Balu was adopted by Kela after following the due process and was by all means, the adopted son of Kela. It was further the defence of the defendants that after the death of Kela, his wife Jadav and Balu succeeded to half share of the property each and Balu thereafter, remained in possession of said property which he got in succession because of the adoption. A prayer was therefore made to dismiss the suit as preferred by the plaintiffs. 5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed as many as ten issues. 6. After hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record as well as the evidence led by the parties, the learned Court below proceeded on to decree the suit of the plaintiffs and declared that Balu or defendants No.1 and 2 did not have any right over the property in question and that the plaintiffs had succeeded to the property by succession. Consequently, the sale deed dated 12.02.2007 executed in favour of defendant No.2 was cancelled to the extent of the ownership of the plaintiffs. Further, defendants No.1 and 2 were permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs as well as from alienating the property in question. 7. Regarding the other reliefs pertaining to the mutation entries as well as the correction in the revenue records, the suit was dismissed on the ground that for the said reliefs, the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court. 8. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2008, the present regular appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Arvind Samdariya submitted that the learned Court below seriously erred in law in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as the suit itself was not maintainable before the Civil Court. Learned counsel submitted that the reliefs as sought in the suit were specifically pertaining to entries in the revenue record and the ownership qua the agricultural land. Therefore, it was only after a decree of declaration being granted by the Revenue Court that, the civil suit for the ancillary reliefs could have been maintainable before the Civil Court. Learned counsel submitted that the reliefs as sought in the suit were specifically pertaining to entries in the revenue record and the ownership qua the agricultural land. Therefore, it was only after a decree of declaration being granted by the Revenue Court that, the civil suit for the ancillary reliefs could have been maintainable before the Civil Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Hardev deceased represented by his LRs Vs Goru & Ors.[ 1988 (1) RLR 609 ]; Rooda Ram Vs. Rattu Ram [1972 RLW 532]; Modu Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and Others [ (2015) 3 WLN 284 ] and Ram Kripal Das Ji Charitable Trust Vs. Phool Chand & Ors.[2012 {1} DNJ (Raj.) 531]. 10. The second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the suit was specifically barred by law of limitation as the adoption of the year 1952 as well as the revenue entries of the same period of time were sought to be challenged in the present suit which prima facie were time barred. 11. On the issue of adoption, learned counsel submitted that the adoption was validly proved on record and the Court below, ignoring the documentary as well as oral evidence on the issue, reached to a finding contrary to such material and therefore, the said finding deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions rendered in the matters of Bhanwarlal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2006(1) DNJ [Raj.] 486 and Ladi Vs. Badri Narayan; 2001 DNJ [Raj.] 735. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the possession of the defendants on the land in dispute since more than fifty years was proved on record and therefore also, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in their favour. Learned counsel also submitted that the adoption of the year 1952 was never challenged by the adoptive mother (Jadav) or sister (Shringari) during their lifetime and the present suit has been filed by the present defendants only after the death of Balu (adoptive father), Jadav (adoptive mother) and Shringari (adoptive sister). Meaning thereby, the adoption was admitted and accepted by the adoptive mother as well as the father and therefore, is not required to be proved. The present suit after the death of the executant and the recipient, is wholly misconceived. Meaning thereby, the adoption was admitted and accepted by the adoptive mother as well as the father and therefore, is not required to be proved. The present suit after the death of the executant and the recipient, is wholly misconceived. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decisions rendered in the matters of Nandkishore Vs Brijbehari; 1954 RLW 563 and Moti Lal Vs. Sardar Mal; 1975 WLN 932. 13. Per contra learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Saruparia appearing for the respondents submitted that the present suit specifically pertained to the issue of adoption and cancellation of sale deed. Both the issues/reliefs were within the purview of the Civil Court and therefore, the suit could have been maintained before a Civil Court only. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Charan; 2018 RLW (1) Raj. 826, Dolat Khan Vs. Kamla Devi (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.106/2022) decided on 14.12.2022 and Ganesh Ram Vs. Lota Ram & Ors.; 2022 0 Supreme(Raj.) 665. 14. So far as the reliefs regarding the revenue entries are concerned, learned counsel submitted that firstly, the same were the ancillary/consequential reliefs and secondly, the suit regarding the said reliefs was any how dismissed by the Court. He submitted that the Court below rightly reached to the conclusion that the defendants miserably failed to prove the adoption and the said finding, based on cogent evidence, deserves to be affirmed. Learned counsel further submitted that the only evidence (though not admitted) available on record regarding the fact of adoption were the revenue entries and it is the settled proposition of law that revenue entries alone cannot be a proof of factum of adoption. In above context, learned counsel relied upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Badri Bai & Ors. Vs. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan & Ors.; 2014 23 RCR (Civ) 225 and Jethu Singh Vs. Bhanwar Singh & Ors.; 2003 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1143. 15. Responding to the ground of limitation as raised, learned counsel submitted that the learned Court below has rightly decided the issue in the favour of the plaintiffs as the sale deed, cancellation of which has been prayed in the present suit, was of the year 2007 and the suit has been preferred in the same year which clearly is within the period of limitation. Further, limitation always commence from the date of knowledge of the fact which construes to give raise to a cause of action to the party. It has been clearly proved on record that the fact of having got the revenue entries mutated in their favour on the basis of the alleged adoption had come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs for the first time in the year 2007 only when the impugned sale deed was executed. Therefore, the suit was specifically within limitation and the Court below rightly decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Smt. Jogeswari Pradhan Vs. Rajia @ Rajendra Pradhan; 2015(2) CurCC 146 and Virendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Kashiram (deceased) through LRs; AIR 2004 Raj. 196 . 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documentary as well as the oral evidence available on record. 17. On basis of the pleadings as adduced by the parties, issue No.6 regarding the jurisdiction was framed by learned trial Court as under: ^^vk;k izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj flfoy U;k;ky; dk ugha gksdj jktLo U;k;ky; dk gS \^^ 18. The trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the suit was specifically for a declaration that Balu was not an adopted son of Kela and therefore, was not entitled to any right in the property of Kela which relief, was specifically within the domain of a Civil Court only. Qua other reliefs, learned trial Court concluded that the reliefs regarding the correction in the revenue entries were within the domain of the revenue Courts and therefore, decided the said issue partly in favour of the defendants and partly in favour of plaintiffs. 19. Qua other reliefs, learned trial Court concluded that the reliefs regarding the correction in the revenue entries were within the domain of the revenue Courts and therefore, decided the said issue partly in favour of the defendants and partly in favour of plaintiffs. 19. The reliefs (Ka) & (Kha) as prayed for in the present suit are as under: ^^¼d½ oknh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) ?kks"k.kk dh fMØh iznku QjekbZ tkos fd ^^ckyq iq= dkyq tkV LoxhZ; dsyk iq= peuk tkV fuoklh Qrsgxढ+ dk xksn iq= ugha Fkk vkSj dsyk dk xksn iq= cudj dsyk dh lEifRr esa fdlh izdkj dk gd ,oa vf/kdkj ugha j[krk gSA blds i'pkr~ bu vk/kkjksa ij nsoh o :dek dk Hkh dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj ugha gksrk gSA ¼[k½ oknh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh fMØh iznku QjekbZ tkos fd izfroknh nsoh iq= ckyq }kjk viuh gh iq=h Jhefr :dek iRuh cnzh tkV fuoklh y[ef.k;kl ds i{k esa fnukad 12-02-2007 ckjg Qjojh nks gtkj lkr dks xkao jhB dh d`f’k vkjkth la[;k 18] 19] 22 fdrk 3 jdck 3 ch?kk 16 fcLok o vkjkth la[;k 20 jdck 4 fcLok vk-pk- ds laca/k esa fd;k x;k foØ; foys[k voS/k] 'kwU; vkSj vd`r gS rFkk fujLr Qjek;k tkos ,oa bl foØ; nLrkost dh vkM+ esa jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha fd;k tkosA^^ 20. The pleadings made by the defendants in their written statement in paras No.27 & 30 are as under: ^^27& ;g gS fd ckyw] dsyk dk xksniq= Fkk] dsyk o mldh ifRu us fof/kor :i ls ckyw dks xksn fy;k FkkA o ckyw ds ekrk&firk us fn;k FkkA blh dkj.k jktLo jsdkMZ esa ckyw ds uke vkjkft;kr~ ntZ gqbZA - --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- 30& ;g gS fd dsyk dh e`R;q yxHkx 60 lky iwoZ gks pqdh Fkh o fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj iqf=;ka Jaxkjh o cxrh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj dsyk dh lEifRr esa ugha feyrk gS o dsyk dh lEifRr tks ckyw esa osLV gks xbZ og ckyw ds iq= dks gh mRrjkf/kdkj ls gh izfroknh la- 01 dks feyh gSA oknhx.k o mldh ekrkvksa dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ckyw ds uke ij vafdr Hkwfe;ksa ij ugha gSA tc cxrh o Jaxkjh dk gh vf/kdkj ugha gS rks oknhx.k dks dSls fey ldrk gS ;g rF; dkfcy&,&xkSj gSA^^ 21. A bare reading of the above pleadings makes it clear that the present suit is primarily for the reliefs of declaration of the adoption as well as the sale deed to be void. As is the settled proposition of law, the said reliefs can only be granted by a Civil Court and any revenue Court would not have jurisdiction to grant the above reliefs. Apparently without the adoption and the sale deed having been declared to be void, it cannot be declared that the revenue entries in favour of the defendants made on basis of the said documents, were illegal or void. The revenue entries were admittedly made on the basis of the adoption in question and therefore, without getting the adoption declared void, the plaintiffs could not have challenged and got the relief in their favour regarding the said revenue entries. 22. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, all of them pertain to matters wherein the primary/main relief was regarding the revenue entries or agricultural lands. It is clear on record that in the present matter, primary reliefs are for declaration of the adoption as well as the sale deed to be void and therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants would not apply to the present case. Thus, the present suit for reliefs as mentioned above, could have been maintained before the Civil Court only and the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.6 cannot be interfered with and is therefore, affirmed. 23. So far as ground of limitation is concerned, it is relevant to note that no issue regarding limitation has been framed by the Court below. It has been argued by counsel for the appellants that when the same objection was very well raised by the defendants in their written statement, issue regarding the same ought to have been framed by the Court and non-framing of the said issue itself is sufficient to set aside the present judgment and decree and to remand the matter to the Court below. 24. True it is that the issue/objection regarding limitation can be raised at any stage and therefore, this Court has proceeded on to take into consideration the objection raised by Counsel for the appellants. 25. 24. True it is that the issue/objection regarding limitation can be raised at any stage and therefore, this Court has proceeded on to take into consideration the objection raised by Counsel for the appellants. 25. The pleadings made by the defendants in para no.22 of the written statement regarding the suit being time barred read as under: ^^;g fd okni= dh dye la-22 drbZ xyr gksdj Lohdkj ugha gSA nkok tkfgjk rkSj e;kn ckgj gS foØ;i= ls dksbZ fe;kn ugha feyrh gSA oknhx.k dks iwoZ ls gh ckyw ds uke vkjkft;kr~ gksus o nsch ds uke ij jktLo jsdkWMZ esa gksus dh dh iw.kZ tkudkjh Fkh o dCtk Hkh ckyw o nsch dk yxkrkj pyk vk jgk FkkA o Jaxkjh dh e`R;q ds ckn vius uke Jaxkjh dh vkjkft;kr~ dk bUrdky [kqyok;k Fkk] fQj oknhx.k dks tkudkjh dSls ugha Fkh] ;g rF; dkfcy&,&xkSj gS nkok fe;kn ckgj gSA** 26. A bare perusal of the above pleadings shows that the defendants have pleaded that the revenue entries were made soon after the death of Shringari and the said fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs since then. Firstly, the said pleading has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs were aware of the said entries. Secondly, the relief regarding the revenue entries has not been held to be maintainable by the Court below and the Court has specifically decided the issue qua the said relief against the plaintiffs. Therefore, when the relief itself as prayed for, has not been entertained by the Court, the said relief being barred by law of limitation even otherwise would be of no consequence. Admittedly, the sale deed in question had been executed in the year 2007 and the suit was preferred in the same year for the cancellation of the same. The primary relief prayed for in the present suit was the cancellation of the sale deed and the Court below has also adjudicated on the said relief only therefore, the suit for the reliefs as adjudicated by the Court being within time, the objection raised by counsel for the appellants is hereby, rejected. 27. Issue No.7 framed as under by Court below pertains to service of notice under Section 80 CPC : ^^vk;k /kkjk 80 flizl dk uksfVl oknhx.k }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gS ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS \^^ 28. 27. Issue No.7 framed as under by Court below pertains to service of notice under Section 80 CPC : ^^vk;k /kkjk 80 flizl dk uksfVl oknhx.k }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gS ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS \^^ 28. No arguments qua the said issue have been made by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court however, the finding on the issue can even otherwise not be interfered with as the notice under Section 80 CPC is required to be served on the Government/public authority only if relief is claimed against the said authority. Admittedly, in the present suit defendants No.4,5 & 6 were the formal parties and no specific relief qua them had been prayed for. Therefore, the said issue has rightly been decided by the Court below in favour of the plaintiffs. 29. Issue No.9 pertaining to Valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid on the same has been framed by the Court as under: ^^¼9½ vk;k okn dk ewY;kadu lgh ugha gS rFkk vnk fd;k x;k U;k;;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS \^^ 30. The finding of the said issue has not been challenged in the present appeal and therefore, this Court is not required to go into the said issue and finding thereupon is therefore, affirmed. 31. Issue No.1 regarding the core issue of adoption of Balu has been framed by the Court below as under: ^^¼1½ vk;k Lo- ckyq tkV dsyk th dk xksniq= ugha Fkk \^^ 32. While deciding the said issue the Court below has specifically considered the evidence led by DW2 Narain Lal as well as DW-3 Bheru both of whom were more than 65 years of age. The Court below has specifically reached to the finding that both these witnesses have specifically admitted that they were totally unaware of the date and year of adoption. Moreover, the tentative time/year of adoption as suggested by these witnesses did not tally with the pleadings of the defendants and therefore, the Court below reached to the conclusion that the defendants miserably failed to prove the fact of adoption. 33. Moreover, the tentative time/year of adoption as suggested by these witnesses did not tally with the pleadings of the defendants and therefore, the Court below reached to the conclusion that the defendants miserably failed to prove the fact of adoption. 33. DW-2 Narain Lal in his cross examination, specifically admitted as under: ^^esjs dsyk th tkfr dk HkkbZ ca/k gSA dsyk dk fu/ku gq, 50&60 lky gks x;s gSA ml le; esa eSa NksVk Fkk iwjk ;kn ugha gSaA dkyq dc ejk ;g eq>s irk ugh a gS oks esjs tUe ls igys gh ej x;s FksA dkyq dh iRuh dk uke e>s /;ku ugha gS dsyk th e`R;q ds le; esjh vk;q 15&20 lky dh FkhA ckyq dks dsyk th us esjs tUe ls igys gh xksn ys fy;k FkkA blfy;s eSa ugha crk ldrk fd dc] dgka fdlds lkeus] xksn fy;k vkSj xksn dh D;k D;k jhfr fjokt vkSj jLe gqbZ] fdlus xksn fy;kA DW-3 Bheru in his cross examination stated as under: tM+ko ifr dsyk dks eSa ugha tkurk gwa u gh eSaus mudks ns[kkA dsyk dh iRuh tM+ko dk fu/ku esjs tUe ls igys gh gks x;k FkkA dsyk th us ckyq dks dc xksn fy;k o dgk xksn fy;k bldk eq>s irk ughaA xksn nsus o ysus esa dkSu&2 Fkk bldk eq>s irk ugha gSA ckyq ds vlyh cki dk uke dkyw gS o eka dk uke eSa ugha tkurkA ckyq ds uSlfxZd ekrk firk dc ejs bldk eq>s irk ugha gSA ckyq ds ekrk firk us xksn fn;k ;g eSaus ugha ns[kk gSA^^ 34. A bare perusal of the statements made by the defendants witnesses themselves is sufficient to prove that there was no evidence on record to prove the fact of adoption. 35. Now coming on to the judgment in the case of Moti Lal, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants with a submission that in case of an old adoption, presumption ought to be drawn in favour of the validity of the adoption. 36. In Moti Lal' case (supra), it has been held as under: "8. It has been laid down in several cases that after a lapse of long years, it is likely that the evidence of adoption may not be available and it may become difficult to find any witness who had eye-witnessed the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. In Moti Lal' case (supra), it has been held as under: "8. It has been laid down in several cases that after a lapse of long years, it is likely that the evidence of adoption may not be available and it may become difficult to find any witness who had eye-witnessed the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. In such cases if the party alleging adoption adduces some evidence of the factum of adoption, it may be regarded as sufficient to shift the burden on the other side to prove that the adoption did not take place. In such cases of old adoption, a presumption in favour of the validity of the adoption is naturally drawn from the status of the adopted son in the adopting family and its recognition by the members of the family for a number of years." 37. The said ratio would clearly not apply to the present matter as in the present matter, it has specifically been proved on record that even after the alleged adoption, Balu represented himself and was recognized as-Balu son of Kalu (natural father) only. The documents showing Balu to be son of Kalu have been placed on record and even taken into consideration by the Court below. The revenue entries of the year 1962-65, jamabandi of Samvat 2046 (Exhibit-19) and the mutation entries of the last years (Exhibit-20) showed Balu to be the son of Kalu only. Even the receipt of the Panchayat pertaining to the year 1990 (Exhibit.-21), the receipt of education cess (exhibit-22) and voter list of year 1980 (exhibit23) mentions Balu to be son of Kalu. Taking into consideration the above mentioned documents, the Court below reached to a specific finding that the fact of adoption is proved to be totally incorrect. 38. In Nand Kishore's case (supra), it has been held that in the case of an old adoption the fact should be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Undisputably, in the present matter although alleged to have been given in adoption to Kela, Balu continued to be recognized as son of Kalu and therefore, the alleged adoption cannot be held to be proved on record. Moreover, the first entries of the year 1965 in the revenue record have admittedly been made on the ground of Balu being nephew of Kela. Moreover, the first entries of the year 1965 in the revenue record have admittedly been made on the ground of Balu being nephew of Kela. In the said entry, it has specifically been mentioned that Kela has expired and he has not left behind any other legal representative and therefore, name of Balu is mutated in his place. Had he been adopted in the year 1952, the revenue entries in the year 1955 would not have mentioned Balu to be the nephew of Kela. Admittedly, besides one revenue entry in favour of Balu, there is no other document available on record to prove the fact of adoption. As argued by learned counsel for the respondents, even if revenue/mutation entry in favour of Balu being the adopted son of Kalu is presumed to be true, the same itself cannot be held to be sufficient to prove the fact of adoption. 39. In Badri Bai's case (supra), it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court as under: "The opening of mutation alone cannot establish the adoption. It is more so when no adoption deed or any evidence for it could be submitted by the appellant to the satisfaction of the original Revenue Court so as to Board of Revenue." 40. Further in Jethu Singh's case (supra), it has been held as under: "12. Thus, in view of the above the law on the subject can be summarised that fiscal entries like mutation do not represent or create any title or interest the property, nor the complicated issue of succession, either by way of Will or adoption can be settled in mutation proceedings and the parties have to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of title." 41. Conclusively, in view of the specific documentary as well as the oral evidence available on record, it is clear that the adoption as alleged never took place and therefore, the findings as reached by the Court below are totally in consonance with the evidence as led by the parties. The finding/decision on issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs is therefore, affirmed. 42. The finding/decision on issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs is therefore, affirmed. 42. Issues No.2 & 3 were framed by the Court below as under: ^^¼2½ vk;k okni= dh pj.k la- 2d&o [k esa of.kZr vpy laifÙk ds oknhx.k vdsys mRrjkf/kdkjh gS vkSj bl laifRr esa Lo- ckyq th o mlds i'pkr muds iq= nsoh dk dksbZ gd o fgLlk ugha gS \ ¼3½ vk;k okni= dh pj.k la- 4 o 11 esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij izfroknh Øe 1 nsoh }kjk izfroknh Øe 2 :dek ds i{k esa fu”ikfnr foØ;i= dsyk th dh laifRr dh lhek rd fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS \^^ 43. A perusal of the issues as framed makes it clear that the decision of the same was totally dependent on decision of issue No.1. So far as issue No.1 is concerned, this Court has specifically opined that the same has rightly been decided in the favour of the plaintiffs by the Court below. Therefore, in view of the finding on issue No.1 that Balu was not the adopted son of Kela, Balu or his legal representatives cannot be held entitled to have any share in the properties of Kela. Consequently, the plaintiffs were rightly held to be the sole successors to the properties of Kela as mentioned in Para No.2 of the plaint. As a consequence, the sale deed executed in favour of Rukma (Defendant No.2) by Debi (Defendant No.1) could not also held to be valid and therefore the cancellation of the same as decreed in the favour of the plaintiffs by the Court below is totally in consonance with law. 44. Issue No.4 was framed as under: ^^¼4½ vk;k dsyk th dh laifRr ds laca/k esa ckyq th rFkk mlds i'pkr~ nsoh o :dek vkfn ds i{k esa tks ukekUrj.k gqvk gS og fujLr gksus ;ksX; Fkk \^^ 45. The said issue pertaining to the revenue entries has been decided against the plaintiffs by the Court below on the premise that the same was not within its jurisdiction and rightly so. No cross objections regarding the issue have been filed by the plaintiffs respondents and therefore, the finding on the same being not under challenge, does not deserve any interference. 46. No cross objections regarding the issue have been filed by the plaintiffs respondents and therefore, the finding on the same being not under challenge, does not deserve any interference. 46. Issue No.5 as framed reads as under: ^^¼5½ vk;k oknxzLr tk;nkn ij oknhx.k dk dCtk gS rFkk izfroknh Øe 1 o 2 blesa gLr{ksi djus ij vkeknk gS vkSj laifRr dks vU;= varfjr djus ij vkeknk gS vkSj bl ckcr oknhx.k izfroknh la- 1 o 2 ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\^^ 47. The trial Court has proceeded on to decide the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the statements of PW-1 Rameshwar Lal, PW-2 Deva and PW-3 Devilal who specifically stated that the land was in possession of the plaintiffs. The Court has further taken adverse inference against the defendants as despite their specific pleading/admission that Debi was paying the regular rent (Lagaan) and is in possession of receipts thereof, failed to place them on record. In the opinion of this Court, the finding as reached by the trial Court is totally in consonance with the provisions of law regarding the adverse inference to be taken against a party for non-production of the documents admitted to be in his/her possession. Consequently, decision on the said issue in favour of the plaintiffs is also liable to be affirmed and is hereby affirmed. 48. Consequently, on the basis of the above observations and the findings, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment and the decree dated 27.03.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast track) No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Original Case No.28/07 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. 49. All pending applications also stand disposed of.