Smt. Prankumari and Another vs Pyarelal Ahir and Others

T.P. Sharma, J.—By filing Second Appeal Nos. 723 of 1995 and 550 of 1996, the present appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur, in Civil Appeal Nos. 59A/89 and 60A/89, whereby learned Additional District Judge, while deciding Civil Appeal No. 59A/89 filed by the present appellants and Civil Appeal No. 60A/89 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, has partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-2-1988 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur in Civil Suit No. 22A/82, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur has dismissed the suit on the ground that appellant/ plaintiff Smt. Prankumari was not adopted as a daughter by deceased Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya, therefore, Prankumari is not entitled for any decree relating to the property and also declared the sale deed executed in favour of respondents Pyarelal, Ramashankar and Khetni Bai null and void. By filing two appeals viz., Second Appeal No. 723 of 1995 and Second Appeal No. 550 of 1996, the present appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 59A/89 and 60A/89, whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the finding that Gaya Prasad has not adopted Pran Kumari and held that Pran Kumari is not competent to file civil suit for declaration of two sale deeds executed by Sankhuliya Bai in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother as null and void.

The present two appeals have been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:-

Whether the findings recorded by the learned courts below to the effect that the appellant No. 1 is not the adopted daughter being contrary to pleadings and evidence deserves to be set aside ?

Whether the learned first appellate court erred in holding that the sale effected in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 was not obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and the said findings are contrary to evidence on record?

Appellant No. 1 Smt. Prankumari in Second Appeal No. 723 of 1995 has filed Civil Suit for declaration of possession against one Mu. Sankhuliya, respondents Pyarelal, Ramashankar and mother of respondents No. 1 and 2 viz. deceased Khetni Bai on the basis that Prankumari was taken into adoption by Gaya Ahir, husband of Smt. Sankhuliya (since deceased) after taking consent of Smt. Sankhuliya in the year 1957. Thereafter, Gaya Prasad died and the property left by Gaya Prasad was succeeded by his adoptive daughter Prankumari and his wife Smt. Sankhuliya. Smt. Sankhuliya alone was not competent to sell the property, but by two registered sale deeds dated 6-1-1979 without any authority respondents Pyarelal, Rama Shankar and deceased Khetni Bai succeeded in execution of sale deeds by Smt. Sankhuliya in their names. By filing separate written statements, Smt. Sankhuliya, alleged adoptive mother of Prankumari, has denied the factum of adoption and has supported the case of the defendants relating to transfer of the suit property. Contesting defendants viz., Pyare Lal, Rama Shankar and Khetni Bai, have filed written statements and have denied the factum of adoption of Prankumari and have specifically pleaded that Sankhuliya Bai has executed sale deeds in favour of Pyare Lal, Rama Shankar and Khetni Bai after receiving consideration and has handed over the possession of the property. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur has dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-2-1988 in Civil Suit No. 22A/82 on the ground that Prankumari is not adoptive daughter of Gaya Prasad & Sankhuliya and Sankhuliya has not sold the land to Pyare Lal, Rama Shankar and Khetni Bai. Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court by both the parties. By filing Civil Appeal No. 59A/89, appellant No. 1 Prankumari has challenged the part of the decree relating to factum of adoption which was against her and respondents/other appellants namely Pyare Lal, Ramashankar and deceased Khetni Bai have challenged the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 60A/89 relating to validity of sale deeds. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur has upheld the finding relating to factum of adoption that appellant Prankumari was not adopted by Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya, but reversed the finding relating to sale transaction and has held that Prankumari was not competent to file any civil suit for declaration of sale deeds executed by Sankhuliya in favour of the aforesaid appellants and declaration of such document null and void is not sustainable under the law.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in the present case, factum of adoption was denied by both the Courts below only on the ground that present appellant No. 1/plaintiff Prankumari has not pleaded the custom observed at the time of adoption in her civil suit. Learned counsel further argued that appellant No. 1/plaintiff has pleaded in her plaint that she was adopted by her adoptive father observing caste and custom and by adducing evidence she has proved that only Pooja at the time of adoption, was prevailing in her caste which was not against public policy or against the law, therefore, no further proof was required to prove the custom for valid adoption. Even otherwise in the absence of any proof of any custom for valid adoption, the Court is required to consider the question of adoption in the light of provision of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ''the Act, 1956'') in which no specific procedure has been provided. The only requirement is that in case of adoption, the adoptive child should be below the age of 18 years and in case of adoption during life time of wife, husband is required to obtain consent of his wife. At the time of adoption, the parties have observed all the requirements of law for valid adoption, therefore, both the Courts below erred in holding that Gaya Prasad has not adopted Prankumari. Learned counsel contended that the trial Court has rightly decided the issue against the respondents that Sankhuliya has not executed sale deeds in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and deceased Khetni Bai, mother of respondents No. 1 and 2. The alleged sale deeds bear thumb impression of Sankhuliya. Sankhuliya has examined herself who has denied the factum of execution of sale deeds in favour of respondents Pyarelal, Ramashankar and deceased Khetni Bai. These three persons are beneficiary, therefore, in case of execution of deeds by illiterate woman, heavy burden was on the respondents to prove conscious execution of the documents by illiterate woman Sankhuliya, but they have utterly failed to prove such conscious execution of both sale deeds. In one hand, they have cross-examined Sankhuliya and tried to prove that she was not having any issue, therefore, she and her husband has spent huge amount for marriage of their relatives and they were not in need of money, on the other hand, recital of both the sale deeds reveal that Sankhuliya was in acute need of money for repayment of loan advanced to her by different creditors. In the present case, respondents. No. 1 and 2 have not proved the payment of consideration. They have not examined any witnesses before whom consideration was paid to Sankhuliya Bai. In the absence of proposal, acceptance and passing of consideration, both the deeds were not deed of transfer of the property executed by Sankhuliya Bai, although during life time of Sankhuliya Bai, present appellant No. 1 Prankumari was not entitled for declaration of both the deeds null and void. She was only entitled for declaration of deeds not binding upon her, but after death of Sankhuliya, her sole surviving heirs viz., adoptive daughter Prankumari and testamentary heir her husband are entitled for such relief on the ground that Prankumari is claiming share to the extent of 1/2 shares and husband of Prankumari is claiming title relating to share of Sankuliya on the basis of will deed, therefore, they are claiming title independently, therefore, they are required to claim for declaration of both the sale deeds null and void.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that the present appellants were not entitled for any declaration of the deeds null and void, especially during life time of Sankhuliya who has executed sale deeds in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother deceased Khetni Bai. Evidence of Sankhuliya is sufficient for proving the factum of conscious execution of sale deeds and passing of consideration. Even she has not challenged the sale deeds during her life time, therefore the appellants are not entitled to challenge the legality and validity of sale deeds executed by deceased Sankhuliya. Learned counsel further argued that in case of valid adoption, present appellant No. 1 was under obligation to prove the custom observed at the time of adoption, but reason best known to appellant No. 1 Prankumari she has neither pleaded nor proved the custom observed at the time of such adoption. Best witness available for proving the factum of adoption was deceased Sankhuliya who has examined as DW-1. She has categorically deposed that she or her husband has never adopted Prankumari as their daughter. On the ground that they have solemnized the marriage of Prankumari with appellant No. 2, no inference can be drawn that they have adopted Prankumari as her daughter. Prankumari has examined the witnesses who have deposed that deceased Gaya Prasad had adopted Prankumari before them, but they have not narrated the factum of adoption to any person before their examinations in the Court. Sankhuliya has not stated in her written statement or her evidence that the alleged witnesses were present at the time of adoption, therefore, it was not possible for the appellant/plaintiff to examine these witnesses in support of factum of adoption. Even otherwise, she or Sankhuliya has not acted in support of such adoption, inter alia, Sankhuliya has sold the land to respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother after death of Gaya Prasad. Name of Sankhuliya was mutated in the revenue records. She has not applied for mutation along with Prankumari, inter alias, she has opposed the objection of Prankumari. These facts are sufficient to disprove the factum of adoption.

Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Salekh Chand (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Satya Gupta and Others, , in which the Apex Court has held that it is incumbent on the party setting up a custom to allege and prove the custom on which it relies. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Pentakota Satyanarayana and Others Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam and Others, , in which the Apex Court has held that onus of proof of adoption always lies on the claimant. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others, , in which the Apex Court has held that valid execution of document is pure question of fact and not question of law. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Bonder and Another Vs. Hem Singh (dead) by LRs. and Others, , in which the Apex Court has held that to prove title by adverse possession is pure question of fact and not question of law. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Dulichand v. Prahladsingh 1983 MPWN 259, in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that evidence without pleading cannot be looked into. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Ramchandra v. Gauribai 1989 MPWN 157, in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that admission withdrawn from pleading cannot be made use by opponent. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Bholooram (Bhola) and Others Vs. Ramlal and Others, , in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that consent of Hindu wife for adoption is necessary even in case the wife is residing separately from last 20-25 years.

In the present case, as per pleadings of the parties, appellant/ plaintiff Prankumari is adoptive daughter of deceased Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya. Sankhuliya has not sold the property to present respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother Khetni Bai, therefore, Prankumari alone is entitled to succeed the property left by Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya after their death. During pendency of appeal before the lower appellate Court and on the basis of registered sale deeds executed by Sankhuliya Bai, Ramadhin Yadav viz., husband of appellant Prankumari has applied for impleading him as a party and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned lower appellate Court has permitted Ramadhin Yadav to be added as a legal representative of deceased Sankhuliya Bai. Present appellant Prankumari and legal representative of Sankhuliya viz., Ramadhin have jointly filed this second appeal.

In the present case, appellant/plaintiff Prankumari was under obligation to prove the valid adoption. Sankhuliya Bai was illiterate woman and as per alleged sale deeds, she had put her thumb impression; therefore, burden to prove conscious execution of sale deeds was only on the respondents. Sankhulia Bai has contested the case and by filing written statement she had denied the factum of adoption, but has admitted execution of documents in favour of the respondent. She has also examined herself in the Court. In her evidence, she has denied the adoption and also denied execution of sale deeds in favour of the respondents. She was examined in commission. In para 30 of her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that she has not filed any reply of the plaint. As per records of the Courts below, she has filed her written statement on 1-4-1983, on that day she was represented by Shri S. Guljar, Advocate. She was examined in Commission on 14-3-1987, at that time she was represented by Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on 21-1-1987. Para 2 of the plaint reveals that deceased Gaya Ahir had obtained consent from Sankhuliya before adoption of appellant/ plaintiff Pran Kumari and had adopted her in the year 1957. From perusal of para 2 of the plaint, it also reveals that Gaya "

As per contention of learned counsel for the appellants, there is no specific custom in the caste of appellant No. 1 for adoption and only Pooja was required which Gaya Ahir has observed. Learned counsel further contended that if the parties have failed to prove any custom observed for adoption, then the law applicable to the parties will prevail and the Court is required to see whether the parties have observed the law prevailing for adoption or not.

In the present case, as per pleadings of the parties, Gaya Prasad has adopted appellant Pran Kumari in the year 1957. Both the parties are Hindu and the Act, 1956 was in force at that time. As per Chapter II, parties were competent to give or take the child in adoption. Age of Pran Kumari was also below 18 years at the time of adoption. In case of adoption in accordance with clause (vi) of Section 11 of the Act, 1956, the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned provided that the performance of datta homam shall not be essential to the validity of adoption. The parties are required to prove that the parents of Pran Kumari have actually given Pran Kumari to Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya and Gaya Prasad and Sankhuliya have actually taken Pran Kumari as their adoptive daughter. No other rituals or conditions are necessary for valid adoption as per the Act, 1956.

In order to prove the valid adoption, appellant Pran Kumari (PW-1) has deposed that Pooja was performed at the time of adoption and the parents have given her to Gaya Ahir who had taken her. On the date of filing of plaint i.e. 25-9-82, age of Pran Kumari was 32 years, means in the year 1957 she was only aged about 7 years. She has deposed relating to adoption on 5-8-87, after thirty years of adoption. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the child age 7 years would be in a position to state the true facts of the alleged adoption which was performed thirty years prior to such date of evidence. The appellant/ plaintiff has examined other witness Ramdev Pandey (PW-2), who has deposed in para 3 of his evidence that at the time of Ramnawmi in the year 1956-57, adoption was performed in the courtyard of Gaya Prasad in his presence and he has administered the adoption, at that time age of the plaintiff was 6 to 7 years. Pooja and Datta homam was also performed. In his cross-examination he has admitted that occasionally he used to go to the house of Gaya Prasad and Gaya Prasad was his disciple. He has admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that occasionally he used to go to the house of Pran Kumari. He has also stated that he does not know any previous proceedings pending before the Court. The plaintiff has never told to him for evidence relating to adoption in any proceedings. As per para 10, he is resident of village Badsara, away from village of Pran Kumari viz., Karhiyakhand. Plaintiff Pran Kumari has also examined Pitambar Ram (PW-3) who has deposed that he was priest at the time of marriage of the plaintiff. At the time of marriage, Gaya Ahir told him that appellant Pran Kumari was her Duttak Putri. He has also admitted in para 2 that Ramdev (PW-2) is his grandson and in his absence he used to perform Pooja and other religious function in the house of Gaya Ahir. In para 4 of his cross-examination, he has specifically deposed that he has not administered the adoption of the appellant, but before solemnize of marriage of appellant Pran Kumari, he was having knowledge that the appellant was taken in adoption by Gaya Ahir. Another witness Naimuddin Ali (PW-4) has deposed that before him Gaya Prasad adopted the appellant, but in para 4 of his cross-examination he has deposed that he reached to the house of Gaya Ahir after performance of adoption. Bal Sai (PW-5) has also supported the factum of adoption and has denied adverse suggestion given to him. Anjoriya Bai (PW-6) has also supported the factum of adoption.

Sankhuliya Bai (DW-1) has not admitted the factum of adoption or consent at the time of adoption, but she has admitted in para 6 or her examination that when her husband brought Pran Kumari to her house at that time Pooja was performed. In her detail cross-examination, she has not admitted the factum of adoption and has admitted that they have performed marriage of their other relatives on the ground that they were issueless.

As per copy of record of right Ex. P/1, lands were recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad. Ex. P/5 order of Naib Tahsildar reveals that on the basis of sale deeds executed by Sankhuliya, names of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother were mutated, Thereafter, Pran Kumari has filed an application for deletion of the names of the respondents, in which she has made a party to Sankhuliya. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, Revenue Court has arrived at a finding that Pran Kumari is not entitled for mutation of her name on the basis of any adoption. As per para 2 of the plaint, Gaya Prasad has adopted appellant No. 1 Pran Kumari as per his caste custom.

While dealing with the question of pleading and prove of custom, the Apex Court in the matter of Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs. (supra) has held that the party who claims benefit on the basis of custom is required to plead and prove the custom. Para 26 of the said judgment reads thus:-

A custom, in order to be binding must derive its force from the fact that by long usage it has obtained the force of law, but the English rule that "a custom in order that it may be legal and binding, must have been used long that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" should not be strictly applied to Indian conditions. All that is necessary to prove is that the usage has been acted upon in practice for such a long period and with such invariability as to show that it has, by common consent, been submitted as the established governing rule of a particular locality.

In the present case, virtually appellant No. 1 has neither pleaded nor proved the custom. She has not examined any witness to show that any specific custom was prevailing in her caste since long time and other persons have also observed that same custom. In order to prove custom, even she has not examined any member of her caste except her mother Anjoriya Bai who has not stated any custom relating to adoption.

After appreciating the evidence and pleadings, both the Courts below have arrived at the findings that appellant Pran Kumari has failed to plead and prove any custom.

As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Pentakota Satyanarayana and others (supra), burden to prove adoption was on appellant No. 1, but she has failed to discharge her burden.

As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra), question of adoption and custom is pure question of fact and not the question of law, therefore, concurrent findings of both the Courts below are not liable to be disturbed.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that both the Courts below have committed any illegality in deciding the issue that appellant No. 1 Smt. Prankumari is not adoptive daughter of Gaya Prasad.

Consequently, substantial question of law No. 1 formulated for the decision of the appeal is decided as negative.

As regards the validity of sale deeds in question, the trial Courts has decided this issue against respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother, but the lower appellate Court has decided the aforesaid question in their.

Admittedly, the alleged both sale deeds were executed by deceased Sankhuliya, an illiterate woman in favour of respondents No. 1 & 2 and their mother Khetni Bai vide Ex. D/1 and D/2, in which as per pleadings and evidence of the respondents, Sankhuliya has put her thumb impression. As per Ex. D/1, Sankhuliya Bai has received Rs. 3,000/- and as per Ex. D/2, Sankhuliya Bai has received Rs. 8,000/- and she was acute need of money to discharge the loan taken from different money lenders. Definitely, both the documents have been executed by an illiterate woman in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother who were beneficiary. In case of documents executed by an illiterate woman, burden of proving conscious execution of the documents by an illiterate woman is upon the person in accordance with Section 101 of the Evidence Act who desires in the Court to give judgment in his favour, but in the present case, respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother were beneficiary, therefore, burden to prove conscious execution of the documents Exs. D/1 and D/2 was upon respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother.

In order to discharge their burden, respondent Pyarelal and other purchaser Khetni Bai, mother of Pyarelal have examined themselves. They have also examined Shiv Mangal (DW-3), but have not examined any attesting witness of the documents. Khetni Bai (DW-2) has specifically deposed in para 4 of her evidence that her husband has purchased the land in her name. In para 5 of her evidence, she has further deposed that she was sitting near Munshi and Munshi has performed all the work relating to registration of sale deeds. Pyare Lal Yadav (DW-1) viz., respondent No. 1 has also examined himself who has specifically deposed in para 9 of his cross-examination that he has given money to Sankhuliya before Ranjit and Daya Ram. As per para 7 of his evidence, normally the persons of his village use to present the document for registration before Sub-Registrar of Baikunthpur, but document Ex. D/2 has been registered by Registrar, Ambikapur on the ground that Sub-Registrar of Baikunthpur has demanded money from him. Both the documents Exs. D/1 and D/2 reveal that both the parties where residents of Tahsil Baikunthpur. The property in question was situated within the territory of Tahsil Baikunthur, but sale deeds were prepared, executed and registered at Ambikapur.

This is the peculiar circumstances relating to both the documents. Sankhuliya Bai was an illiterate woman. By two documents, respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother have given Rs. 11,000/- to Sankhuliya in the year 1979. As per evidence of the respondents, Sankhuliya and her husband Gaya Prasad had performed marriage of so many children of their caste on the ground that they were issueless which shows that they were not in need of money, but documents Exs. D/1 and D/2 reveal that an illiterate woman Sankhuliya Bai was acute need of money and to discharge of the loan, even she has sold her entire property and became propertyless and landless, but present respondents No. 1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence to prove that before whom money were paid, why they have not obtained receipt, why they have not paid money before Registrar, why peculiar proceeding was adopted for registration, why instead of registration before Sub-Registrar Baikunthpur, documents were registered before Registrar, Ambikapur, why they have paid money one day prior to execution of the documents and why it has been mentioned that they have paid the money one day prior to execution of the documents.

The respondents were under obligation to satisfy the circumstances for conscious execution of the documents, but they have not adduced any evidence to satisfy the circumstances for proving conscious execution of the documents.

The alleged executor of the documents Sankhuliya Bai has also examined herself who has admitted the execution of the documents in her written statement, but has denied the execution of the documents including written statement in her evidence. In her evidence, she has categorically deposed that Pran Kumari was not her adopted daughter, they have never adopted, only they have brought her for her maintenance and they have also performed her marriage. As per para 29 of her cross-examination, when she was residing with Pran Kumari, then even she has not supported the case of factum of adoption. In paras 23, 24 and 25 of her cross-examination she has deposed that father of present respondent No. 1 brought her to Ambikapur for her treatment and she has not executed sale deed. She has deposed in paras 16 to 19 of her evidence that she has not sold the land, she has not received consideration. She has also deposed that she was residing with Sukhram and Sukhram use to her notice and probably Sukhram has engaged counsel for her. In page 7 repeated para 11 she has also deposed that after execution of the documents and mutation, the respondents have stopped for providing meal and her maintenance. Her detailed evidence reveals that being a widow lady having no issue, present appellant No. 1 Pran Kumari and respondents had tried to obtain the properties of Sankhuliya by hooks and crooks and without any consideration. Sukhram, father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and husband of Khetni Bai succeeded in execution of two documents without any consideration.

In the present case, respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother were beneficiary and in case of an illiterate woman, burden to prove conscious execution of the documents by her was solely on the respondents, but they have failed to discharge their burden. After appreciating the evidence, learned trial Court has arrived at a finding that Sankhuliya has not sold the land to respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother Khetni, but learned lower appellate Court has arrived at a finding that appellant Pran Kumari was not party to the sale deeds, therefore, the trial Court was not justified to declare the sale deeds null and void at the instance of appellant Pran Kumari.

Definitely, in the present case, appellant Pran Kumari was not party to the sale deeds and Pran Kumari was not adopted by Gaya Prasad as a daughter, therefore, appellant Pran Kumari was not entitled for any relief relating to the aforesaid deeds or property. Therefore, lower appellate Court has technically not committed any illegality, but the trial Court has not declared the said deeds null and void at the instance of appellant Pran Kumari but has given finding that the alleged documents viz., sale deeds were illegal and ineffective and without consideration on the basis of contradictory allegations of both the parties and issues framed by the trial Court. The trial Court has not declared the documents null and void at the instance of appellant/plaintiff Pran Kumari but has simply given finding that the documents are in effective and was without consideration. On the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, learned trial Court has not held that sale deeds has not been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, but has held that plaintiff Pran Kumari was not competent to file suit for declaration of sale deeds null and void. Learned lower appellate Court was technically correct but has not given any finding relating to genuineness and validity of the sale deeds in question.

Consequently, substantial question of law No. 2 formulated for the decision of the appeal is decided that the lower appellate Court has not held that sale effected in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 was not obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The finding of the trial Court is not contrary to the law. On the basis of finding on the aforesaid substantial questions of law, present appellant No. 1 Smt. Prankumari is not having any interest over the property on the basis of adoption and the alleged sale deeds executed in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and their mother Khetni Bai is ineffective, illegal and without consideration, as held by the trial Court which has not been challenged by the respondents before any Court, but in the present case, present respondents No. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit land and litigation is pending since 1982 between both the parties. Appellant No. 2 Ramadhin Yadav has made as a legal representative of deceased Sankhuliya after her death on the basis of sale deeds before the lower appellate Court.

For the foregoing reasons, present appellant No. 1 Smt. Prankumari is not having any right and title over the property. Consequently, Second Appeal Nos. 723 of 1995 and 550 of 1996 are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.

Advocate fee as per schedule. A decree be drawn accordingly.