AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 10/78/2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 21/2/2019 passed by the trial court granting injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been allowed and the application filed by the petitioners has been rejected.
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, along with the suit an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court by its order dated 21/2/2019 restrained the respondents from mortgaging, transferring or selling the disputed agricultural land.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before the court of Addl. District Judge. The appellate court came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein had suppressed material facts with regard to adoption of their father by his maternal grand mother and that acting as adopted son, he had transferred land owned by his maternal parents. The plea raised pertaining to illegality of registered adoption deed of the year 1951 was rejected on the ground that as per Section 30 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956'), the provisions were not applicable to the adoption which took place prior to the said Act coming into force and consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently made submissions that the first appellate court committed grave error in accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. Submissions were made that the alleged finding of suppression has no substance inasmuch as the fact of adoption was already indicated in the plaint and along with the said indication it was also submitted that the allegations were false.
Submissions have been made that the entire material pertaining to the petitioners' father established his identity at various places along with his natural father and not the adopted parents and, therefore, the plea raised by the defendants in the suit had no substance and the trial court was, therefore, justified in granting injunction.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.
The first appellate court has meticulously dealt with the issues and has categorically come to the conclusion that besides the registered adoption deed, which could not be questioned on account of non-applicability of the Act of 1956, it also relied on the conduct of the petitioners' father in transferring the land belonging to his maternal grand parents by claiming himself to be their adopted son by way of registered sale deed and several other pleas, as raised by the petitioners, were negated.
The findings of the first appellate court while reversing the order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Court.
So far as the plea raised by the petitioners pertaining to identity of the petitioners' father by way of various documents, claiming himself to be the son of his natural father is concerned, the conduct of the petitioners' father in transferring the land belonging to his maternal grand parents is writ large and the said aspect has not been denied and, therefore, the subsequent conduct would have no implication.
In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.