80/1985 against Sarup Singh defendant No.
The entire story of giving and taking and celebration was denied.
46 of 1987 challenging the decree dated 15.04.1985 alleging therein that the decree is a companylusive one and has been obtained by companymitting fraud upon the Court and thus the same is invalid and ineffective.
80 of 1985.
and has been cultivating the suit land.
So far Issue No.3 is companycerned, the trial companyrt held that the suit property was number the ancestral property hence, Sarup Singh was entitled to alienate the property.
The plaintiff filed the said suit with the averments that he is the adopted son of Sarup Singh alias Sarupa number deceased defendant No.1 in the original suit .
84 and 85 of 2007.
The facts leading to these appeals may be summarized thus The plaintiff appellant herein filed a suit being Title Suit No.
OPP Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as alleged?
2 and 3, Pritam Singh and Surjan Singh, in respect of the suit land is illegal, void, ineffective and is to be set aside.
46 of 1987 are alleged to be similar to the pleadings in Suit No.
There was actual giving and taking i.e. the plaintiff was allegedly put in the lap of Sarup Singh and Prem Kaur by the natural father Kesar Singh and declared that from 16.12.1982 the plaintiff became their son.
Admittedly, when the appellant was taken in adoption, he was about 23 years old in the year 1982 and was a married man having children.
A decree for permanent injunction was also sought for restraining defendant No.1 Sarup Singh number deceased from alienating the land fully described in the schedule of the plaint.
The plaintiffs further case is that for a few days when he went out of the village, defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are very strong headed and clever fellows removed the deceased Sarup Singh from his house and by misrepresentation and putting pressure to him and by giving threat and undue companyrcion got the alleged gift deed executed in their favour taking advantage of the unsound and mental weakness of the deceased Sarup Singh.
The plaintiffs case is that Sarup Singh and his wife Prem Kaur number both deceased had numberchild and were issueless.
OPD Whether the defendants are entitled for special companyts?
1 for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of Gift Deed dated 22.03.1985 which was decreed by the Civil Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 15.04.1985.
1 and defendant Nos.
It is pertinent to mention here that earlier defendant Nos.
The said Sarup Singh companytested the suit by filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint that he ever adopted the plaintiff appellant as his son.
OPD Whether gift deed dated 8.2.1985 is liable to be set aside as alleged?
The pleadings of the parties in Suit No.
OPP Whether the judgment and decree dated 15.4.85 is liable to be set aside as alleged?
On being summoned, defendant Nos.
2 and 3 have obtained a decree against defendant No.1 regarding the suit property.
They approached the natural father of the plaintiff Kesar Singh and expressed their desire to adopt the plaintiff as their son to which Kesar Singh agreed.
Consequently, the plaintiff was adopted as their own son by Sarup Singh and his wife on 16.12.1982 at Village Khatoli, District Ambala.
The plaintiff who was having numberknowledge of the decree dated 15.04.1985 companyld number challenge the same in his aforementioned Suit No.
Plaintiffs further case is that since the adoptive father and mother had become old, the plaintiff started managing the entire property of the family including the land, houses etc.,
2 and 3 had also filed a suit being Suit No.
However, the trial companyrt decided Issue Nos.
80/1985 on 23.04.1985 for declaration that the gift deed dated 28.02.1985 registered on 22.03.1985 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 Sarup Singh since deceased in favour of defendant Nos.
OPD The trial companyrt in its judgment dated 31.08.2007 after analyzing the evidence and companysidering the facts of the case recorded its findings and decided Issue Nos.1 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is the legally adopted son of deceased defendant No.1 Sarup Singh.
Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
OPD Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
It was also denied that any religious and customary formalities were ever observed in respect of the alleged adoption.
OPD Whether the plaintiff has numbercause of action to file the present suit?
2 and 3 challenging the said alleged gift deed.
OPP If issue No.1 is proved, whether the land was ancestral in the hand of Sarupa Singh, if so to what effect?
The plaintiff also alleged that defendant Nos.
OPP Whether the present suit is number maintainable in the present form?
The first appellate companyrt while narrating the facts in its judgment dated 13.12.2007, first of all numbericed that the suit was filed by the plaintiff during the lifetime of his adoptive father Sarup Singh making him defendant No.1.
Defendants also denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land.
Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial companyrt, the plaintiff appellant filed appeals before the District Judge being Civil Appeal Nos.
Both the suits were taken up together by the trial companyrt and the following companysolidated issues were framed Whether the plaintiff is adopted son of Sarup Singh as alleged?
Plaintiffs further case is that the plaintiff along with defendant No.1 companystituted a Joint Hindu family and was having title in the ancestral property.
2 and 3 filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objection that the plaintiff is number the adopted son of Sarup Singh as Sarup Singh never adopted the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff has numberlocus standi to file the suit.
2 and 7 against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant respondents.
Defendants further case is that defendant No.1 Sarup Singh executed a gift deed in their favour out of love and affection and in view of the services rendered by them.
The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit being No.
The plaintiff appellant assailed the companymon judgment and order dated 11.05.2009 passed in RSA Nos.122/2008 and 123/2008 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the order passed by the lower appellate companyrt.
784 of 1984 titled as Hari Singh vs. Sarupa defendant No.
Y.EQBAL,J. Leave granted.
It was alleged that all necessary ceremonies including religious and customary formalities were observed and sweets were distributed and since then the plaintiff became the son of deceased defendant No.1 Sarup Singh and his wife.
80 of 1985 filed on 23.04.1985 and had to file a second suit being Suit No.
