Ichha Barik And Others vs Natabar Barik (Dead) Through His L.Rs And Others

Dhobei (dead)

=Rama (Dead)",,,,,,

Bata (dead)

=Ichha

(Pltf.No.1",,,,"Nata

(Deft.No.1)","Hema (daughter)

= Kusa (husband)",

Mina

(Pltf-2)","Rabi

(Pltf-3)

(died as

bachelor)","Deba

(Pltf-4)","Reena

(Pltf-5)",,"Maheswar

(Pltf-6)","Kanchan

(Pltf.7)

Court summarised the following principles.,,,,,,

“36. We may conclude our views relating to Civil Court’s jurisdiction by stating that the same would be available after closure of consolidation operations only,,,,,,

in any one of the following circumstances;,,,,,,

(i) The cause of action accruing after the closure of the consolidation operations.,,,,,,

(ii) If the consolidation authorities had taken the decision without complying with the provisions of the Act or had not acted in conformity with the fundamental,,,,,,

principle of judicial procedure (which would take within its fold the case of violation of natural justice).,,,,,,

(iii) Obtaining of order from the hand(s) of consolidation authorities by playing fraud on the party who seeks to approach the Civil Court.â€​,,,,,,

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the decision cited supra, the conclusion irresistible is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain",,,,,,

the suit notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 51 the OCH & PFL Act.,,,,,,

In the celebrated judgment, the apex Court in the case of Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, A.I.R. 1959 SC 504, held that as an adoption results in",,,,,,

changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote",,,,,,

relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to,,,,,,

leave no occasion for doubting its truth.,,,,,,

In L. Debi Prasad v. Smt. Tribeni Devi, AIR 1970 SC 1286, the apex Court quoted with approval the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of",,,,,,

Jadumani Patra v. Padan Patra, (1968) 34 Cut LT 778 and Jagannath Mohanty, v. Chanchala Bewa, AIR 1973 Orissa 160. The apex Court held:",,,,,,

“10. In the case of all ancient transactions, it is but natural that positive oral evidence will be lacking. Passage of time gradually wipes out such evidence. Human",,,,,,

affairs often have to be judged on the basis of probabilities. Rendering of justice will become impossible if a particular mode of proof is insisted upon under all,,,,,,

circumstances. In judging whether an adoption pleaded has been satisfactorily proved or not, we have to bear in mind the lapse of time between the date of the",,,,,,

alleged adoption and the date on which the concerned party is required to adduce proof. In the case of an adoption said to have taken place years before the same is,,,,,,

questioned, the most important evidence is likely to be that the alleged adoptive father held out the person claiming to have been adopted as his son; the latter",,,,,,

treated the former as his father and their relations and friends treated them as father and son. There is no predetermined way of proving any fact. A fact is said to,,,,,,

have been proved where after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought,",,,,,,

under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists………â€​",,,,,,

The law is equally well settled that where direct evidence is available for establishing the ceremony of adoption irrespective of lapse of time, the relaxation",,,,,,

permissible in the case of an ancient adoption is not available to be applied.â€​,,,,,,

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sauney Majhi and another v. Duli Dei and others, AIR 1985 Orissa 22, has succinctly stated the",,,,,,

principles governing ancient adoption. This Court held: “6. The law is fairly settled that the evidence in support of an adoption is sufficient to satisfy,,,,,,

the very grave and serious onus that rests upon any person who seeks to displace the natural line of succession by alleging an adoption. The fact of,,,,,,

adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact, but where there is a lapse of long period between the date of adoption and the time when",,,,,,

it is being questioned, every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove such fact must be favourably entertained, as after the lapse of a long",,,,,,

period, direct evidence to prove adoption may not be available.â€​",,,,,,

Reverting to the facts of this case and keeping in view the enunciation of law laid down in the decisions cited supra, this Court finds that the",,,,,,

plaintiff asserts that Nata is the natural son of Dobai. He has been adopted to Sridhar. Sridhar executed a registered deed of adoption, vide Ext.1.",,,,,,

There was giving and taking ceremony. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned appellate court came to hold that",,,,,,

P.Ws.1, 2 & 5 stated that they had no knowledge with regard to adoption of Nata. There was no giving and taking ceremony. Nata is not the adopted",,,,,,

son of Sridhar. There is no perversity in the said finding.,,,,,,

Reliance placed on Exts. 1 & 3 is totally misplaced. This Court in the case of Bauri Dei and others v. Dasarathi Sahu and others, 41 (1975)",,,,,,

C.L.T.267 held that creation of documents is no substitute for the fact of giving and taking which must be proved independently de hors any,,,,,,

document. The instant case is not a case of ancient adoption. The plaintiff examined witnesses to prove adoption. The witnesses had stated that they,,,,,,

had no knowledge with regard to adoption of Nata. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.,,,,,,

The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is that the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is",,,,,,

dismissed. No costs.,,,,,,

..………..…...………………..,,,,,,