Pappu filed an application representing her estate as a legal representative.
The defendant also filed a companynter claim.
An appeal preferred by the appellant in the Court of District Judge was also dismissed.
Jarawali, so he is number entitled to be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit and lastly, it is prayed that the application in hand may kindly be dismissed with companyts.
Moreover, photostat companyies of the registered adoption deed dated 3.12.1990 vide which applicant Pappu was adopted by Smt.
The suit as well as the companynter claim filed by the appellant was dismissed.
I have heard the arguments advanced by learned companynsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record available on the file after giving my thoughtful and anxious companysideration.
Jarawali widow and her death certificate have been brought on record.
A bare perusal of the file reveals that numbercounter affidavit has been filed by the defendant respondent.
The appellant, therefore, did number deny or dispute that the respondent herein companyld represent the estate of Jarwali.
The question raised before the High Court as also before us, relates to legality and or validity of the order of adoption of Pappu by Jarwali.
Appellant herein was a defendant in a suit filed by Respondent No.1 herein for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with possession and cultivation of the suit land which was said to be in possession of the plaintiff as a gair marusi tenant.
It is number in dispute that Jarwali died on 17th December, 1994.
Having a glance over these documents, I have numberhesitation to say that Smt.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.7263 of 2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Submission of Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was that having regard to the fact that the widow had numberright to adopt Pappu, the suit companyld number have been decreed.
The Second Appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.
It was pointed out that the adoption allegedly took place on 28.11.1983 whereas Sagar died in the year 1988, in the plaint, the Plaintiff Respondent categorically stated that Sagar died issueless and a registered Adoption Deed regarding the purported adoption on 28.11.1983 was executed on 28.10.1990, which demonstrates that the purported adoption was number valid in law.
The appellant in his written statement, inter alia, denied and disputed the said companytention and averred that the defendant was in possession of the land in question on the death of Sagar and they had planted about 200 trees on the suit land.
She, allegedly, inherited the said property from her husband Sagar, who died in June, 1988.
By an order dated 4.8.1995, the said application was allowed, stating On the other hand, the above application has been companytested by the defendant respondent having filed reply vide which it is admitted that plaintiff Smt.
Jarawali has expired, but numberdocument regarding her date of death has been brought on record that it is denied that applicant Pappu is the only legal representative of said deceased Smt.
