Judgment : (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.) 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and all three appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These three appeals have been filed by the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 CPC of Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.43/2012 titled as “Ladu V/s Ram Lal & Ors.”, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for declaring the adoption deed as null and void, permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.04.2005 which was presented on 05.03.2005 and cancelling the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 has been decreed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of adoption deed as null and void and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 04.04.2005 presented on 5.03.2005 and cancellation of sale deed dated 30.06.2005. The said suit was amended. The plaintiff sought various reliefs and also sought the relief that the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 executed by Ramlal in favour of Vastu Township Private Limited be declared as illegal and void and also that the sale deed dated 04.04.2005 presented on 05.03.2005 executed by legal heirs of Ram Chandra in favour of M/s Tiyara Construction Private Limited be also declared as illegal and void. The plaintiff in his suit mentioned that the disputed land originally belonged to Bhoriya @ Bhairu. After his death, land vested in Ladu(the plaintiff), Ram Chandra and Mohriya (all sons of Bhoriya @ Bhairu). Later on Mohriya became monk and he died in the year 1992. Plaintiff came to know that after the death of Bhoriya, by way of forged document(s) Ramlal wanted to get mutated the land of Mohriya in his name. He also created forged document(s) i.e. adoption deed dated 10.02.1991. At that time, civil death of Mohriya had occurred. So, the said document(s) could not be executed. It was also stated that as per Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a person, who is above the age of 15 years, cannot be adopted. He also created forged document(s) i.e. adoption deed dated 10.02.1991. At that time, civil death of Mohriya had occurred. So, the said document(s) could not be executed. It was also stated that as per Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a person, who is above the age of 15 years, cannot be adopted. At the time of execution of adoption deed, Ramlal was 30 years old. So, he can not be taken in adoption. So, the document(s) dated 10.02.1991 was void and illegal. The suit was said to be within limitation. So, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. 4. The defendants filed the written statement in which it was stated that land in question was subject matter of acquisition under the land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was also stated that originally land belonged to Bhoriya @ Bhairu, who expired leaving behind his three sons Mohriya, Ram Chandra and Ladu. Mohriya died issueless but he adopted Ram Lal, who stepped into the shoes of Mohriya. Before the land acquisition authority, all the three sons agreed to get the compensation for their respective shares and to get 25% of the developed land in lieu thereof. The matter concluded and attained finality. The said award has not been challenged till today. The legal heir(s) of defendant No.2- Ram Chandra stated that they had sold 1/3rd share of the disputed land to M/s Tiyara Construction Pvt. Limited for which they were entitled. So, sale deed executed by them could not be cancelled. It was also stated that Mohriya had adopted Ram Lal on 17.07.1969 when age of Ram Lal was 9 to 10 years. The plaintiff had undervalued the suit and paid deficit court fees. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 5. On the pleading of the parties, the trial framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the defendant No.1 Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya through adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 and whether on account of civil death, Mohriya became monk in samvat 2010-20, so he was not competent to adopt defendant No.1-Ramlal? (2) Whether after assuming the civil death of Mohriya, the plaintiff and deceased defendant No.2 divided the disputed land legally and equally through written agreements? (3) Whether on account of not adopting Ramlal by Mohriya in accordance with the provision of Law, adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 is illegal and fake? (2) Whether after assuming the civil death of Mohriya, the plaintiff and deceased defendant No.2 divided the disputed land legally and equally through written agreements? (3) Whether on account of not adopting Ramlal by Mohriya in accordance with the provision of Law, adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 is illegal and fake? (4) Whether Mohriya had adopted Ramlal legally on 17.07.1969? (5) Whether the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter regarding agricultural land? (6) Whether the plaintiff had properly valued the suit and filed the same on sufficient court fees? (7) Relief? (8) Whether legal heir(s) of defendant No.2-Ram Chandra had sold the undivided parental property illegally by presenting the sale deed on 05.03.2005, which was registered on 04.04.2005, which having been registered during the pendency of the suit were null and void as against the plaintiff and liable to be cancelled? (9) Whether the defendant No.1 Ramlal @ Ramulal had illegally sold 1/3rd share of disputed land by registered sale deed dated 30.6.2005 to Vastu Township Private Limited during the pendency of the suit and the said registered sale deed dated 30.06.2005 was void and illegal against the plaintiff? (10) Whether suit is time barred? (11) Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff? (12) Whether defendants are entitled to get special cost from plaintiff? (13) Whether on account of non payment of court fees for cancellation of sale deed dated 05.03.2005 and 30.06.2005, suit was not maintainable?” 6. To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and adduced the evidence of witnesses PW-2 Kaluram, PW-3 Dhanna Ram. To prove their case, the defendants got examined DW-1 Ramulal, DW-2 Rameshwar, DW-3 Prabhunarayana and DW- 4 Hanuman. Both the parties also got exhibited certain documents. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared that Ramlal is not adopted son of deceased Mohriya and also declared that proceedings done in favour of Ram Lal assuming him as adopted son of Mohriya in relation to the agricultural land are void as against the plaintiff would have no adverse effect on the rights of the plaintiff accrued to him on the aforesaid agricultural land after the death of Mohriya. Similarly, the sale deed dated 04.04.2005 and 30.06.2005 executed in favour of the defendant No.1/1, 3 and 4 during the pendency of the suit were also declared null and void as against the plaintiff’s rights? 8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court has committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that by way of cogent evidence, the plaintiff had to prove that Ramlal was not adopted by Mohriya vide adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 and also to prove that civil death of Mohriya occurred on account of becoming monk. No adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 was ever produced in evidence by the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff failed to prove date of death of Mohriya. The trial court decided the issue Nos.1 to 3 against the plaintiff but on account of in its contradictory findings, wrongly decided issue No.4 against the defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that it is an admitted position that the originally land belonged to Bhoriya @ Bhoru. After his death, land was vested in the name of Ladu, Ram Chandra and Mohriya (all sons of Bhoriya @ Bhoru). Mohriya was unmarried. The plaintiffs failed to prove that Mohriya became monk and his civil death occurred. 10. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the defendants by way of evidence proved that Mohriya adopted Ramlal on 17.07.1969. On account of adoption, mutation was entered in the name of Ramlal. The said mutation was never challenged by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that without getting the khatedari right in the land in question by the plaintiff, the suit was not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence regarding death of Mohriya. The defendants in their evidence exhibited the death certificate of Mohriya (Ex.A-5). 12. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants had also exhibited Ration Card (Ex.A-2) in which it was mentioned that Ramlal @ Ramu was son of Mohriya. 13. The defendants in their evidence exhibited the death certificate of Mohriya (Ex.A-5). 12. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants had also exhibited Ration Card (Ex.A-2) in which it was mentioned that Ramlal @ Ramu was son of Mohriya. 13. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the disputed land was acquired by Jaipur Development Authority for SEZ in which plaintiff submitted an application (Ex.A-9) before the land acquisition officer and also filed declaration (Ex.A-10), compensation agreement (Ex.A-11), affidavit (Ex.A-12) and Jamabandi (Ex.A-13) and mentioned that he had 1/3rd share in the disputed land. So, it is clearly revealed that Ladu had accepted the adoption of Ramlal by Mohriya. On account of acquisition, Ladu had got the developed land and the said land was sold by him to Garden Vally Company. Although, he had given evasive reply during the cross-examination but sale deed (Ex.A-25) was exhibited by defendants during the cross-examination. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff in his evidence failed to prove that civil death of Mohriya occurred on 07.12.1992 on account of becoming monk because the plaintiff had not filed the civil suit regarding declaration of the civil death. On account of mere assertion of the parties, civil death can not be assumed. 15. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff in his plaint stated that after the death of Mohriya, disputed land came in the share of the plaintiff and legal heirs of Ram Chandra by way of written agreement. The said written agreement was not proved. So, there was no occasion for the trial court to disbelieve the adoption deed dated 17.07.1969. 16. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that on account of adoption of Ramlal, he became the owner of the land of Mohriya. Accordingly, Ramlal had sold the disputed land to Vastu Township Private Limited. The mutation was never challenged by the plaintiff. So, the trial court had no right to cancel the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 executed by Ramlal in favour of Vastu Township Private Limited. Before cancellation of the said sale deed, the plaintiff had to get declared khatedari right in his favour. 17. The mutation was never challenged by the plaintiff. So, the trial court had no right to cancel the sale deed dated 30.06.2005 executed by Ramlal in favour of Vastu Township Private Limited. Before cancellation of the said sale deed, the plaintiff had to get declared khatedari right in his favour. 17. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the observation of the trial court that Ramlal failed to prove the adoption, is not correct because the plaintiff had to prove the so called adoption deed dated 10.02.1991. Ramlal and his witnesses proved that Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya on 17.07.1969. Observation of the trial court that mere tying of turban did not prove the adoption is not correct because on account of adoption, mutation entries were made in favour of Ramlal. The plaintiff-Ladu filed the documents before the Land Acquisition Officer that he had only 1/3rd share in the disputed land. The said contention is in consonance of the contention of Ramlal. 18. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that legal heirs of Ram Chandra have right to sell 1/3d share of disputed land to M/s Tiyara Construction Pvt. Limited. The trial court had wrongly cancelled the sale deed executed in their favour. So, the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 passed by the trial court be set-aside. 19. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pyarelal V/s. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) through natural guardian (father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. Reported in 2019 3 SCC 692 20. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. He further submitted that the trial court had not committed any error in cancelling the sale deed executed by LRs. of Ram Chandra in favour of M/s Tiyara Construction Private Limited. 21. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that it is an admitted position that the disputed land was in the name of Bhoriya @ Bhairus. After his death, disputed land vested in Ladu (the plaintiff), Ramchandra and Mohriya, who was unmarried and he became monk. On account of becoming monk, his civil death occurred. 22. 21. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that it is an admitted position that the disputed land was in the name of Bhoriya @ Bhairus. After his death, disputed land vested in Ladu (the plaintiff), Ramchandra and Mohriya, who was unmarried and he became monk. On account of becoming monk, his civil death occurred. 22. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that although defendants failed to prove the issue Nos.1,2 and 3 but the defendants had to prove that Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya on 17.07.1969. Evidence of Ram Chandra as well as his witnesses did not prove the adoption because no adoption ceremony was ever conducted. Mere tying of turban did not prove that Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya. 23. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court rightly held that on account of mere mutation entries, it can not be said that Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya. Mutation entries and documents i.e. Ration Card etc. were prepared after filing the suit. Defendants failed to prove any document regarding adoption. 24. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the adoption of Ramlal was not according to Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act because at the time of adoption, Ramlal was aged about 30 years and he was married. So, legally could not be adopted. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the defendants failed to produce the documents i.e. Ration Card, Votor List, School Certificate etc. to show the adoption. So, the trial court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 25. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) ‘Ratanlal @ Babulal Chunilal Samsuka vs. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka (Dead) through lrs and ors.’, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 119 (2) ‘Kishori Lal Vs. Mr. Chaltibai’, reported in AIR 1959 SC 504 (3) ‘Kanhi Vs. Bhairulal and Anr.’, in Appeal No. 435/87 decided on 07.08.1992 (4) ‘ Saurav Jain and Anr. Vs. M/s A.B.P Design and Anr Reported in AIR 2021 SC 3673 (5) ‘Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and Others Vs. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State , in Civil Appeal No.175 of 1973 decided on August 17, 1994 (6) ‘J. Ganapatha and Others Vs. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. Vs. M/s A.B.P Design and Anr Reported in AIR 2021 SC 3673 (5) ‘Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and Others Vs. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State , in Civil Appeal No.175 of 1973 decided on August 17, 1994 (6) ‘J. Ganapatha and Others Vs. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. by its Trustees and Others in Civil Appeal No.4370 of 2025 decided on 25.03.2025 (7) ‘M. Vanaja Vs. M. Sarla Devi (Dead) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 307 (8) ‘Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112 (9) ‘V. Prabhakara VS. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 115 26. Learned counsel for legal heirs of Ram Chandra submits that the trial court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The other defendants failed to prove the adoption of Ramlal by Mohriya. So, the plaintiff as well as the legal heirs of Ram Chandra are entitled to get 1/2 share of the disputed land. So, the appeals filed by the defendants be dismissed. 27. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the legal heirs of deceased Ram Chandra. 28. It is an admitted position that the disputed land was in the name of Bohriya @ Bhairu. After his death, land vested in the name of Ladu, Mohriya and Ram Chandra (all sons of deceased Bhoriya @ Bhairu). Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that Mohriya became monk and his civil death occurred and he was not competent to take Ramlal as adopted son, was not proved by the plaintiff by cogent evidence. When Mohriya became monk and his date of death was not proved from the plaintiff’s evidence. The defendants by way of evidence proved the other documents of Mohriya and got exhibited the death certificate as A- 5. Although, adoption ceremony was not proved by the defendants but in the present case, plaintiff had to stand on his own leg. The plaintiff filed the suit regarding declaration of the so-called adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 as null and void on account of civil death of Mohriya but for the same documents regarding adoption and civil death were not proved by the plaintiff. The trial court in its judgment gave contradictory findings. The plaintiff filed the suit regarding declaration of the so-called adoption deed dated 10.02.1991 as null and void on account of civil death of Mohriya but for the same documents regarding adoption and civil death were not proved by the plaintiff. The trial court in its judgment gave contradictory findings. Defence of the defendants was that Ramlal was adopted by Mohriya on 17.07.1969 is fully proved by the defendants by exhibiting the documentary evidence during the trial. Mutation entry (Ex.A-3) was proved by the defendants during the evidence in which name of Ram Lal was entered as a Khatedar. Disputed land was acquired by Jaipur Development Authority for the purpose of SEZ in which the plaintiff Ladu filed an application before the land acquisition officer (Ex.A-9) and also filed declaration (Ex.A-10), compensation agreement (Ex.A-11), affidavit (Ex.A-12) and Jamabandi (Ex.A- 13) in which it was clearly mentioned that he had 1/3rd share in the disputed land. He never pleaded that on account of death of Mohriya, he had 1/2 share in the disputed land. These documentary evidence clearly prove that name of the Ramlal was entered in revenue records on account of his adoption by Mohriya. 29. The trial court wrongly cancelled the sale deed dated 04.04.2005 executed by legal heirs of Ram Chandra in favour of M/s Tiyara Construction Pvt. Limited because legal heirs of Ram Chandra had right to sell 1/3rd share. This fact was also concealed by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff during the course of arguments. Finding of the trial court regarding issues is contradictory. On account of failure to prove the contents of the plaint, the trial court should have dismissed the suit but the trial court wrongly decreed the suit on the contention of the plaintiff, although, documents filed by the defendants clearly prove that Ram Lal was adopted by Mohriya. So, in my considered opinion, the appeals filed by the defendants deserve to be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 passed by the trial court is liable to be set-aside. 30. Accordingly, these appeals filed by the defendants are allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012 passed by the trial court is set-aside. 31. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.